Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932941Ab0AGEEj (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:04:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932341Ab0AGEEi (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:04:38 -0500 Received: from mail-ew0-f219.google.com ([209.85.219.219]:60871 "EHLO mail-ew0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932324Ab0AGEEh (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:04:37 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=kWfZLhIHp+LE50iB8Yyp1eu+ceHrL7b393gQZ4a0iAdVTse+8RjqLRVB1NqOsFka9O fc4foH+lMOXOTWeXWrGJHCpqtF1WvN/eiUgolMbdAvPTMr16bYqiSA3EjPhX9sOdFH1c TkRvl1/JxHAOZ3UIL5qGIrGG8ZO4B4GcYCpVQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <51f3faa71001061553q29e0821evda63c4ca3eeee3b1@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100105110256.D2DF133C4B0@tippex.mynet.homeunix.org> <4B43DF97.7080208@gmail.com> <20100106083214.DAAA933C5F5@tippex.mynet.homeunix.org> <51f3faa71001061553q29e0821evda63c4ca3eeee3b1@mail.gmail.com> From: Bryan Donlan Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 23:04:16 -0500 Message-ID: <3e8340491001062004h302912a5h8ac441f9fe629af6@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Memory probing fails after 2.6.30 (bisected) To: Robert Hancock Cc: Anders Eriksson , mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1197 Lines: 25 On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Robert Hancock wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Anders Eriksson wrote: >> >> hancockrwd@gmail.com said: >>> Think you missed posting which was the actual bad commit it reported? >> >> The last one in the list: >> 8ecee4620e76aae418bfa0e8cc830e92cb559bbb >> >> That's a merge commit. How do i dig futher into that? My git-fu is lacking... > > AFAIK, the bisect shouldn't land on a merge commit unless the changes > in the commit itself are what are causing the problem, and the merge > commit itself doesn't have any changes. Is it possible something went > wrong in the bisect and one of your good/bad results was incorrect? It's also possible for the bisect to land on a merge if each parent of the merge works, but combining them leads to an interaction causing the bug. I'd suggest specifically retesting each of the parents of the merge, and the merge itself. -- 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/