On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 13:06 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > Here's the final commit from the bisect which caused it . It says "No > > changes to existing functionality" ? > > Ok, it wouldn't be the first time some change that is supposed to change > nothing does actually change something.
Yeah , maybe I screwed something up. First time I've done a git bisect. > That said, one thing to worry about when doing bisection: the kernel > configuration. > > If you always just do "make oldconfig" or something, the kernel config for > the thing you test will depend on the _previous_ kernel you compiled, and > that is not always what you want. I've once had a failing kernel, did > bisection, and it turned out that since I had gone back in time to before > the option that caused the failure even existed, I had (by mistake) then > compiled some of the later kernels without that option enabled, and called > them "good". In this case I don't think anything was specifically turned on, beyond SMP. For instance HRT/dynamic tick was off. I didn't run "make oldconfig", but just running "make" asked for options that just got added, which was nice. > The end result: "git bisect" didn't actually end up pointing to the right > commit, just because I had effectively lied to it. > > That said, considering that you did get a commit that doesn't look > entirely unlikely (and that clearly changes things that are relevant), I > suspect you did actually find the right one. I think if it's not that exact commit it's still one in that set. I mainly wanted to confirm that it was an hrt/dynamic tick issue , and not some left field patches.. Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/