Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28

From: "John W. Linville" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:28:02 -0400

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:48:02AM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 07:55:49AM +0800, Jeff Chua wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds-de/[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > > IOW, if you've pinpointed 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2 as
> > > being bad, then you should go back and double-check that its parent
> > > (in this case 4607816f608b42a5379aca97ceed08378804c99f) is good.
> > > Because if it's parent is also bad, then that just means that you made
> > > some mistake in "git bisect".
> > > In this case, it really sounds like maybe you marked the parent good, even
> > > though you should have marked it bad.
> > 
> > I should have been more careful, just got thrown off during the last
> > few steps of the bisect. But with the bad association to the AP after
> > a57a59f247b651e8ed6d3eeb7e2f9d83b83134c9 (iwlwifi: remove implicit
> > direct scan), can someone suggest where to go from here?
> 
> The obvious question for me is did you try this?
> 
> 	git revert a57a59f247b651e8ed6d3eeb7e2f9d83b83134c9

Hmmm...more like this:

git revert 41bb73eeac5ff5fb217257ba33b654747b3abf11
git revert b23f99bcfa12c7b452f7ad201ea5921534d4e9ff
git revert 71c11fb57b924c160297ccd9e1761db598d00ac2
git revert 4607816f608b42a5379aca97ceed08378804c99f
git revert a57a59f247b651e8ed6d3eeb7e2f9d83b83134c9
 
This first one has a conflict -- just take the hunk.

> Does that restore operation for you?

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email-masked]			might be all we have.  Be ready.