diff --git a/Documentation/BUG-HUNTING b/Documentation/BUG-HUNTING
index 35f5bd2..a41cb24 100644
--- a/Documentation/BUG-HUNTING
+++ b/Documentation/BUG-HUNTING
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ Finding it the old way
[Sat Mar 2 10:32:33 PST 1996 KERNEL_BUG-HOWTO [email protected] (Larry McVoy)]
-This is how to track down a bug if you know nothing about kernel hacking.
+This is how to track down a bug if you know nothing about kernel hacking.
It's a brute force approach but it works pretty well.
You need:
@@ -66,12 +66,12 @@ You will then do:
. Rebuild a revision that you believe works, install, and verify that.
. Do a binary search over the kernels to figure out which one
- introduced the bug. I.e., suppose 1.3.28 didn't have the bug, but
+ introduced the bug. I.e., suppose 1.3.28 didn't have the bug, but
you know that 1.3.69 does. Pick a kernel in the middle and build
that, like 1.3.50. Build & test; if it works, pick the mid point
between .50 and .69, else the mid point between .28 and .50.
. You'll narrow it down to the kernel that introduced the bug. You
- can probably do better than this but it gets tricky.
+ can probably do better than this but it gets tricky.
. Narrow it down to a subdirectory
@@ -81,27 +81,27 @@ You will then do:
directories:
Copy the non-working directory next to the working directory
- as "dir.63".
+ as "dir.63".
One directory at time, try moving the working directory to
- "dir.62" and mv dir.63 dir"time, try
+ "dir.62" and mv dir.63 dir"time, try
mv dir dir.62
mv dir.63 dir
find dir -name '*.[oa]' -print | xargs rm -f
And then rebuild and retest. Assuming that all related
- changes were contained in the sub directory, this should
- isolate the change to a directory.
+ changes were contained in the sub directory, this should
+ isolate the change to a directory.
Problems: changes in header files may have occurred; I've
- found in my case that they were self explanatory - you may
+ found in my case that they were self explanatory - you may
or may not want to give up when that happens.
. Narrow it down to a file
- You can apply the same technique to each file in the directory,
- hoping that the changes in that file are self contained.
-
+ hoping that the changes in that file are self contained.
+
. Narrow it down to a routine
- You can take the old file and the new file and manually create
@@ -130,7 +130,6 @@ You will then do:
that makes the difference.
Finally, you take all the info that you have, kernel revisions, bug
-description, the extent to which you have narrowed it down, and pass
that off to whomever you believe is the maintainer of that section.
A post to linux.dev.kernel isn't such a bad idea if you've done some
work to narrow it down.
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:33:29 +0100 Clemens Koller wrote:
> Just a little whitespace cleanup patch for Documentation/BUG-HUNTING.
>
> Signed-off-by: Clemens Koller <[email protected]>
Mostly looks OK, except for the last chunk: why delete that line?
missing a + line?
@@ -130,7 +130,6 @@ You will then do:
that makes the difference.
Finally, you take all the info that you have, kernel revisions, bug
-description, the extent to which you have narrowed it down, and pass
that off to whomever you believe is the maintainer of that section.
A post to linux.dev.kernel isn't such a bad idea if you've done some
work to narrow it down.
---
~Randy
Features and documentation: http://lwn.net/Articles/260136/
Just a little whitespace cleanup patch for Documentation/BUG-HUNTING
Signed-off-by: Clemens Koller <[email protected]>
diff --git a/Documentation/BUG-HUNTING b/Documentation/BUG-HUNTING
index 35f5bd2..6c81675 100644
--- a/Documentation/BUG-HUNTING
+++ b/Documentation/BUG-HUNTING
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ Finding it the old way
[Sat Mar 2 10:32:33 PST 1996 KERNEL_BUG-HOWTO [email protected] (Larry McVoy)]
-This is how to track down a bug if you know nothing about kernel hacking.
+This is how to track down a bug if you know nothing about kernel hacking.
It's a brute force approach but it works pretty well.
You need:
@@ -66,12 +66,12 @@ You will then do:
. Rebuild a revision that you believe works, install, and verify that.
. Do a binary search over the kernels to figure out which one
- introduced the bug. I.e., suppose 1.3.28 didn't have the bug, but
+ introduced the bug. I.e., suppose 1.3.28 didn't have the bug, but
you know that 1.3.69 does. Pick a kernel in the middle and build
that, like 1.3.50. Build & test; if it works, pick the mid point
between .50 and .69, else the mid point between .28 and .50.
. You'll narrow it down to the kernel that introduced the bug. You
- can probably do better than this but it gets tricky.
+ can probably do better than this but it gets tricky.
. Narrow it down to a subdirectory
@@ -81,27 +81,27 @@ You will then do:
directories:
Copy the non-working directory next to the working directory
- as "dir.63".
+ as "dir.63".
One directory at time, try moving the working directory to
- "dir.62" and mv dir.63 dir"time, try
+ "dir.62" and mv dir.63 dir"time, try
mv dir dir.62
mv dir.63 dir
find dir -name '*.[oa]' -print | xargs rm -f
And then rebuild and retest. Assuming that all related
- changes were contained in the sub directory, this should
- isolate the change to a directory.
+ changes were contained in the sub directory, this should
+ isolate the change to a directory.
Problems: changes in header files may have occurred; I've
- found in my case that they were self explanatory - you may
+ found in my case that they were self explanatory - you may
or may not want to give up when that happens.
. Narrow it down to a file
- You can apply the same technique to each file in the directory,
- hoping that the changes in that file are self contained.
-
+ hoping that the changes in that file are self contained.
+
. Narrow it down to a routine
- You can take the old file and the new file and manually create
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ You will then do:
that makes the difference.
Finally, you take all the info that you have, kernel revisions, bug
-description, the extent to which you have narrowed it down, and pass
+description, the extent to which you have narrowed it down, and pass
that off to whomever you believe is the maintainer of that section.
A post to linux.dev.kernel isn't such a bad idea if you've done some
work to narrow it down.
Clemens Koller wrote:
> Randy Dunlap schrieb:
> > On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:33:29 +0100 Clemens Koller wrote:
> >
> >> Just a little whitespace cleanup patch for Documentation/BUG-HUNTING.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Clemens Koller <[email protected]>
> >
> >
> > Mostly looks OK, except for the last chunk: why delete that line?
> > missing a + line?
> >
> >
> > @@ -130,7 +130,6 @@ You will then do:
> > that makes the difference.
> >
> > Finally, you take all the info that you have, kernel revisions, bug
> > -description, the extent to which you have narrowed it down, and pass
> > that off to whomever you believe is the maintainer of that section.
> > A post to linux.dev.kernel isn't such a bad idea if you've done some
> > work to narrow it down.
>
> Hmm... that was not intended, updated patch attached.
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just a little whitespace cleanup patch for Documentation/BUG-HUNTING
>
> Signed-off-by: Clemens Koller <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
Thanks.
--
~Randy
Features and documentation: http://lwn.net/Articles/260136/