On 24.01.24 13:19, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi! Find below a WIP text on bisecting Linux kernel regressions I plan > to submit for inclusion in the Linux kernel documentation in a month or > two. I could do so now, but chose to write this mail instead, as the > text would really benefit from a few people actually testing the given > instructions. Hence if you notice somebody that faces a regression that > needs bisecting, consider poiting them them to this text, asking them to > play through this and provide feedback to me. > > Ideally point users to the following rendered version: > https://www.leemhuis.info/files/misc/How%20to%20bisect%20a%20Linux%20kernel%20regression%20%e2%80%94%20The%20Linux%20Kernel%20documentation.html > > It is (a) a lot easier to read (b) has no odd or broken line breaks, > like the text below has a few (sorry!) (c) is updated when I improve > something. > > Anyone who might be willing to provide feedback can do so in a reply > here or by modifying the following document (which for copyright reasons > is just a copy of the document I use to prepared the text for the actual > submission): > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Im7SPK0j6PUGQTSGZyCTSQv8h3S51EYsZuRRdyhfzto/edit?usp=sharing TWIMC, I changed a few important things since I wrote above mail. The most important parts: * I switched the default flow from "use a shallow clone of linux-stable" to "use a full clone of linux-mainline with stable added as remote"; the instructions for shallow clones are now in the reference section, as it seems that was was some people prefer. Not really happy with that, as I think the shallow clone stuff was worth it and not that much more complicated. But whatever, not really unhappy either (maybe I like it a bit better myself that way, not sure yet). :-D * I changed a few aspects to make the text properly cover the "verify a bug is present in mainline" aspect as well, as that's basically the preparation and segment 1 of the whole process anyway. Not totally sure if that was a good idea. Maybe having that in a separate copy might have been better (basically a copy with the segment 2 and 3 removed and a few small changes), not sure. But that should be easy to realize later. See above links for details. Ciao, Thorsten
