On Thursday, 1 March 2007 15:52, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo at elte.hu> wrote: > > > hm. There's some weird bisection artifact here. Here are the commits i > > tested, in git-log order: > > > > #1 commit 01363220f5d23ef68276db8974e46a502e43d01d bad > > #2 commit ee404566f97f9254433399fbbcfa05390c7c55f7 bad > > #3 commit f3ccb06f3b8e0cf42b579db21f3ca7f17fcc3f38 good > > #4 commit c827ba4cb49a30ce581201fd0ba2be77cde412c7 bad > > > > if i tell git-bisect that #1 is bad and #3 is good, then it offers me > > #2 - that's OK. But when i tell it that #2 is bad, it offers #4 - > > which is out of order! The bisection goes off into la-la land after > > that and never gets back to a commit that is /after/ the good commit. > > How is this possible? (I upgraded from git-1.4.4 to 1.5.0 to make sure > > this isnt some git bug that's already fixed.) > > > > i'll try to straighten this out manually, perhaps #3 is in some merge > > branch that confuses bisection. Or maybe i misunderstood how > > git-bisect works. > > git-bisect gets royally confused on those ACPI merge branches around > commit c0cd79d11412969b6b8fa1624cdc1277db82e2fe. Here are my test > results so far: > > commit 01363220f5d23ef68276db8974e46a502e43d01d: bad > commit 255f0385c8e0d6b9005c0e09fffb5bd852f3b506: bad > commit c0cd79d11412969b6b8fa1624cdc1277db82e2fe: bad > commit c24e912b61b1ab2301c59777134194066b06465c: good > commit e9e2cdb412412326c4827fc78ba27f410d837e6e: bad > commit 79bf2bb335b85db25d27421c798595a2fa2a0e82: bad > commit fc955f670c0a66aca965605dae797e747b2bef7d: good > commit 70c0846e430881967776582e13aefb81407919f1: good > commit 414f827c46973ba39320cfb43feb55a0eeb9b4e8: bad > commit f3ccb06f3b8e0cf42b579db21f3ca7f17fcc3f38: good > commit 5f0b1437e0708772b6fecae5900c01c3b5f9b512: bad > commit b878ca5d37953ad1c4578b225a13a3c3e7e743b7: bad > commit c2902c8ae06762d941fab64198467f78cab6f8cd: bad > commit 12e74f7d430655f541b85018ea62bcd669094bd7: bad > commit 3388c37e04ec0e35ebc1b4c732fdefc9ea938f3b: bad > commit 9f4bd5dde81b5cb94e4f52f2f05825aa0422f1ff: bad > > the results are totally reproducible (i re-tried a few of both the good > and the bad commits), i.e. it's not a sporadic condition. Also, a number > of the 'bad' commits have no dynticks stuff in them at all, so i'd > exclude dynticks. > > could someone suggest a sane way to go with this? Perhaps suggest > specific commit IDs to test? Hm, does 2.6.20-mm2 work? If not, you can bisect the broken-out sereis with quilt. Rafael
