Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753106AbYCPPA1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:00:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752006AbYCPPAP (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:00:15 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.155]:5206 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751926AbYCPPAO (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:00:14 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-disposition:message-id:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=vIkX1e6Y4q2R1CA1MMFAXst+ohFoOly1As6BDiwU+UFTmpQaGEmMTi6X65b+OTBN0nQxXOVt807saoZf9smmlMIb9zhInKjwXYlLeA0H/kKjJvlortLTAFCHYVCxPXr1EgV6fzJyqzWyEAphtWDzZF8jZiNLcCWZOQ+IFtPzSso= From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Anders Eriksson Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.25-rc4 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:14:39 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linus Torvalds , Jens Axboe , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <200803161529.48527.bzolnier@gmail.com> <20080316142901.015342DC044@tippex.mynet.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <20080316142901.015342DC044@tippex.mynet.homeunix.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803161614.39938.bzolnier@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1689 Lines: 39 On Sunday 16 March 2008, Anders Eriksson wrote: > > bzolnier@gmail.com said: > > This commit is also _after_ the previously "guilty" one (commit > > 852738f39258deafb3d89c187cb1a4050820d555)? > > Yep. > > > IIRC we've agreed that bisection between 2.6.24 and commit 8527* was needed? > > I did that first, and it pointed to 8527* as the bad one. During this bisect > I took care to always start from a 2.6.24 .config, and do a make oldconfig from > that. A clean series of good emerged.. Unfortunately I don't have the configs > from the previous runs saved. > > Given this, I concluded that the configs had to play a role in making a > version go bad, so I decided to do another one between 8527* and 2.6.25-rc1 > always based on the 8527* config (which _worked_ when tested with the 2.6.24 > config dragged forward. So the upped end of the first bisect was badly chosen) > > The attahed was the result of that latter run... Given that the problem manifested with 8527* in the past (w/ whatever config) then 4d97* just cannot be a guilty commit (== the one introducing the problem). IOW the 8527* and later commits just make the issue more likely to occur (moreover there should be no difference in configs between 8527* and 4d97*). I guess that re-doing bisection between 2.6.24 and 8527* may be fruitless but maybe somebody has some idea how we can proceed further with debugging the hang instead? Jens/Ingo? Thanks, Bart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/