Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2e70a6e2-23a6-dbf2-4911-1e382469c9cb@gmail.com>
 <CAM6Zs0WqdfCv=EGi5qU5w6Dqh2NHQF2y_uF4i57Z9v=NoHHwPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM6Zs0X_TpRPSR9XRikkYxHSA4vZsFr7WH_pEyq6npNjobdRVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <11dc5f68-b253-913a-4219-f6780c8967a0@intel.com> <594c424c-2474-5e2c-9ede-7e7dc68282d5@gmail.com>
 <CAM6Zs0XzBvoNFa5CSAaEEBBJHcxvguZFRqVOVdr5+JDE=PVGVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908100811160.7324@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <fbcf3c93-3868-2b0e-b831-43fa68c48d6c@gmail.com> <CAM6Zs0WLQG90EQ+38NE1Nv8bcnbxW8wO4oEfxSuu4dLhfT1YZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908121917460.7324@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <CAM6Zs0UoHZyBkY9-RLdO-W+u09RZPbzq-A-K01sHyRkfoEiYTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908150924210.2241@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <CAM6Zs0XE8GW-P4Q3YM3KZo-1L+g2wt5QRN+JM3_m1xuwgFDVXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908212313340.1983@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <CAM6Zs0VT4hnLu6YAutW8at1-W7DWN990atqdxP2Wv9MwjGG5Dg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908281747080.1938@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908281747080.1938@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Woody Suwalski <terraluna977@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:55:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CAM6Zs0WX2Dp7bWs+mERCWgJbuOdShMRRS-9g+7nyinkUqj=xDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel 5.3.x, 5.2.2+: VMware player suspend on 64/32 bit guests
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:50 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> Woody,
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, Woody Suwalski wrote:
>
> > I have tried to "bisect" the config changes, and builds working/not
> > working between
> >  rc3-rc4-rc5, and come out with the same frustrating result, that
> > building a "clean" kernel is not producing the same behavoir as
> > incremental building while bisecting.
>
> So what you say is that:
>
>    make clean; make menuconfig (change some option); make
>
> and
>
>    make menuconfig (change some option); make
>
> produces different results?
>
> That needs to be fixed first. If you can't trust your build system then you
> cannot trust any result it produces.
>
> What's you actual build procedure?
>
The build procedure: a "clean" one - I have a script/make to build a
.deb by untar the src, patch, copy .config, run make oldconfig, run
make, package.

The bisect and config-change procedures were simpler - I was running
"git bisect bad" and make (followed by make modules_install, copy
bzImage to boot, rebuild initramfs) and reboot. For config changes -
drop new config, hand-merged in steps toward the presumed "good" one,
and run make, and install and reboot...

So I was not running explicitly make oldconfig every time, however I
believe that config has been updated to match other options
selected/unselected by make itself (so I have assumed that make
oldconfig has been automagically run sometime during the build).

But for the bisect procedure I did not run "make clean" at every step,
again - in my former bisections it was not needed, and actually saves
a lot of compilation time toward the end of bisection...

As such I could not directly answer your question - however yes -
building "cleanly" from source seems to produce different results than
doing it incrementaly...

Thanks, Woody