On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:55:03PM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > Maybe you could retrieve the original thread and rely to it with > the report? That's the ideal way of following up on a patch I > think. You can get the mbox file this way: > ./kci_bisect get_mbox \ > --commit ca871659ec1606d33b1e76de8d4cf924cf627e34 \ > --kdir ~/src/linux As a developer I tend to find this unhelpful, it makes it much more likely that the mail will get missed. As a reporter it means there's more information to copy into the report. > > ... which is an old commit, added in v5.19-rc2, and which did not > > enter through the renesas tree at all? > Do you mean this report shouldn't have been sent to you? I do notice that the Renesas tree tends to get a *lot* of the bisection reports generated for some reason (vastly more than any other tree including mainline or -next), however this wasn't sent based on the tree at all - I just looked at the people involved with the commit.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
