We don't explicitly mention anywhere in the kernel tree that bisects between -next versions won't work well and it's better to bisect between mainline and -next. Let's add a note about that to try to help people avoid this particular gotcha. Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst index 585630d14581c7e0bdf9dd3b66d427793d41925b..eef6921a9542ef276c097e5861ca4efe5812ea0d 100644 --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/bug-bisect.rst @@ -109,6 +109,18 @@ With that the process is complete. Now report the regression as described by Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-issues.rst. +Bisecting linux-next +-------------------- + +Since linux-next is a series of merges rebuilt every day starting from +Linus' tree there is no commmon history between multiple versions of +-next. This means that the history of a given -next release won't +include prior -next releases which confuses bisect if you try to +bisect between them. Bisects will run much better if performed between +-next and the commit in Linus' tree which that version of -next is +based on instead. + + Additional reading material --------------------------- --- base-commit: 8e929cb546ee42c9a61d24fae60605e9e3192354 change-id: 20241022-doc-bisect-next-d47c6ace8a95 Best regards, -- Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
