On 14/12/2022 14:50, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. Well it's up to you or anyone reporting the bisection result. Base on my personal experience, I always got very quick replies when doing this. I don't see your point about copying more information though, I would just open the mbox in my mail client to reply and paste the content of the bisection report. With a bit more work this could be fully automated but that should be part of the bisection rework using the new API & pipeline so sometime later in 2023... >>> ... 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. In the past month, there were 15 bisection reports on renesas, 7 on linux-next and 28 on mainline for a total of 79 so 29 in other trees. So it's true renesas is getting quite a lot of them, it's not entirely clear to me why that's the case but it's worth investigating a bit. See my other email about "kci_bisect get_recipients". Thanks, Guillaume
