> > Everything below here is is 'bad', which can be an indication that you > > misclassified one of > > the commits above as 'good' when it should have been 'bad'. The most likely > > explanations are that you either typed the 'git bisect good' by accident, or > > that the failure is not 100% reliable, and it sometimes works fine even on a > > broken kernel. > > > > 0bc5fe857274133ca0 follows directly after 3a443bd6dd7c, "net/9p: correct the > > variable name in v9fs_get_trans_by_name() comment", which is marked "good", > > and can't really be good if 0bc5fe85727413 is bad and you are not using the > > 'qed' driver. > > > > I'd retest 3a443bd6dd7c again to see if that should have been 'bad', and > > if it was, test v4.17-rc4, which is what the net-next tree was based on. > > Yes, the same prebuilt 3a443bd6dd7c appeared to be bad when retesting > it. Building v4.17-rc4 now.
v4.17-rc4 seems good after 2 reboots. -- Meelis Roos (mr...@ut.ee) http://www.cs.ut.ee/~mroos/
