On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 15:33 +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 03 Apr 2017, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Fengguang Wu <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 12:26:54PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 02 Apr 2017, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:03 PM, kbuild test robot <lkp@inte > > > > > > l.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Yes, I understand how to fix this, though it's not a problem of > > > > this > > > > patch per se. > > > > > > > > Fengguang, is there any possible way to determine the relation > > > > between > > > > an error and a root cause change? > > > > > > > > > Andy, our 0day build error reports are all bisected ones. It means > > > the > > > error happens since the reported patch/commit, which is either > > > responsible for the root cause, or somehow triggers (or changes > > > the > > > exact form of) an old bug. > > > > Thanks, like you said in this case it looks pretty much for > > triggering > > an old bug. > > Quite. But as a good open source citizen, you'll follow up with > patches too, right? :) It looks like I have to submit fix for older bug first. Likely I can do this without delays and give you a green light to apply via your tree. Unfortunately I will continue on this tomorrow. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
