DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=OAi1IXSIGfuiZ5gnTZsjyPOku1Qtf70LNVpKOw0dYp7/PHd7V2lCPEjPNdaE72cqvn
         99mA5TgEYy6CjZRFPRFpQS8Qmtlrd1/BYfTTNZBEdBOxPxTINQmt1MADfFwSQkBh5LqT
         5Gjz8Ex9J5EYrKOe+MX9RVLGvk4otDUV3KxD8=
Message-ID: <f19298770901111417t6762e1e3x79b2f488ee6f1243@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:17:31 +0300
From: "Alexey Zaytsev" <alexey.zaytsev@gmail.com>
To: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: current git kernel has strange problems during bisect
Cc: "Sam Ravnborg" <sam@ravnborg.org>,
       "Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
       "Johannes Schindelin" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>, git@vger.kernel.org,
       "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901111200330.6528@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200901111602.53082.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
	 <200901111607.59054.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
	 <alpine.DEB.1.00.0901111613250.3586@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
	 <200901111620.03345.borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901111113150.6528@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20090111194258.GA4840@uranus.ravnborg.org>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901111200330.6528@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1909
Lines: 55

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 23:04, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>
>> The cost of moving this piece of history from one git tree to another
>> git tree is that we make it harder to debug the kernel for the advanced user
>> that knows how to do bisect.
>>
>> It is not like this history would be lost - one just had to look
>> somewhere else to find it.
>>
>> That may be a bad pain/benefit ratio - time will tell.
>
> Umm. No.
>
> Time is exactly what makes it useful. It will make all the downsides
> shrink, and the advantages stay.
>
>> There should be a way to avoid such pain when bisecting without
>> having to mark a semi-random (for the average person) commit as good.
>
> Well, you don't actually have to mark that semi-random one as good either.
> What you can do is to just mark anything that _only_ contains fs/btrfs as
> good. IOW, you don't have to know the magic number - you just have to be
> told that "oh, if you only have btrfs files, and you're not actively
> bisecting a btrfs bug, just do 'git bisect good' and continue".
>
> Yeah, you'll hit it a few times, but you don't even have to compile things
> or boot anything, so it's not actually going to be all that much slower
> than just knowing about the magic point either.

But would not such bug avoid being bisected if you blindly
mark btrfs commits as good?

v2.6.29 <-- bad
...
...
...
btrfs stuff <-- mark as good
...
the-real-bug
...
v2.6.28 <-- good

So you hit the btrfs commit, mark it as good, leaving the real bug below,
and the bisection continues, with both sides being actually bad.

Am I missing something?
--
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/