On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:28:21PM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 22:10 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > > Easy enough, the patch that fixes it is the last one in the series that I sent in yesterday. > > > > > > I don't understand. That is the patch series that Fengguang was testing > > > afaik. His tests were on > > > > > > tree: git://git.linux-nfs.org/projects/trondmy/linux-nfs.git devel > > > head: 5c13c9e1c15ee2ca9ab2b953224001af53d9be09 > > > > > > which includes your patch series from yesterday, no? > > > > Trond, I typically do commit-by-commit tests and will complain if > > *any* point of the tree is not bisect-able. A fix at the HEAD won't > > stop the email notification for a defect in the middle point.. > > > > On the other hand, I do maintain a list of non-rebaseable > > tree/branches, on which the HEAD commit will be tested first, and only > > if any problems are found, go back to find out the first bad commit. > > > > If you prefer the latter behavior, I can add your tree or any branch > > of it to the non-rebaseable list. > > Ah... I see now... So you are saying that the end result is indeed > correct, but the bisection fails... Sorry for the confusions! > The 'devel' tree is usually a mixture of rebaseable and non-rebaseable: > anything that is already been committed to the nfs-for-next branch is > non-rebaseable, while the rest usually is... Got it. I'll mark 'nfs-for-next' and 'devel' as non-rebaseable, and do thorough bisect tests on the other branches. Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
