On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:09:10PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Heh. > > Yeah, at this point I think we can pretty much guarantee that your problem > is one of two cases: > > - either a bit random, and depends on some timing thing, and one of the > kernels you marked "good" wasn't really.
Nope > It's not likely that you marked a good kernel bad, of course, since > with a good kernel, everything should have always worked, but with a > bad kernel and a bug that isn't entirely reproducible, you'd mark it > "good" by mistake - because it just randomly didn't show the problem. Nope > OR > > - we actually have two different commits that introduce the problem for > you, and it comes and goes, and the bisection doesn't work, because > there isn't a clear "this side works, that other side does not" > situation. Yes Looking a bit closer to the bisect myself, I note that 25971f68d392f1816e21520e9e59648403b0bdad and aba297927d1d558c7a94548135133bdf9172708a are part of a branch that is derived from a very "old" revision. git bisect assumes that such an old revision is good, but in fact - that was already bad as well, because the history of this bug is: 2.6.22-rc5 BAD 2.6.22-rc4+somethingelse BAD 2.6.22-rc4+something GOOD 2.6.22-rc4 BAD ... 2.6.18-rc1 BAD 2.6.18 GOOD Thus: BAD BAD BAD GOOD GOOD BAD BAD and git bisect can't handle that, even though I started with a 'good' start point and a bad start point at the end. > For example, later on you say: > > > Personally I am convinced that the real problem is with > > 8888985144db8f4cb7e56154b31bdf233d3550bf > > but if you look at your commit log, you have: > > > # bad: [25971f68d392f1816e21520e9e59648403b0bdad] [PARISC] fix section > > # mismatch in ccio-dma > > git-bisect bad 25971f68d392f1816e21520e9e59648403b0bdad > > Notice? You said that 25971f68d392f1816e21520e9e59648403b0bdad was bad, > but that is *before_ the 8888985144db8f4cb7e56154b31bdf233d3550bf commit. > Do a > > gitk 25971f68d3..8888985144 > > to see that part of the history. This part is thus based upon a revision so old that it was bad again, even before the small period that it was good. > So maybe you didn't test that kernel properly? And maybe it really is > random, and something has happened that just makes it happen more often? No, it is really 100% reproducible. -- Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
