On Wed, 2017-12-27 at 12:18 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:02:48PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > It's on a branch that started at 4.13-rc7 but wasn't merged into > > mainline until after 4.13. Comparing the two of them, 569dbb88e80d has > > the addition of commit fb1522e099f0 "KVM: update to new mmu_notifier > > semantic v2". So I would guess that what you landed on is a different > > bug than the one you were looking for. > > Ouch. Two bugs with such similiar behavior in a single kernel release? > > > Given that commit fb1522e099f0 was merged after -rc7 I assume it's an > > important fix, though the commit message doesn't spell that out. So I > > think that whenever bisect asks you to test a version that doesn't > > contain it, you should cherry-pick it first to avoid the other bug. (I > > think you will then need to use 'git bisect good|bad HEAD^' after > > testing, rather than implicitly flagging the current head commit.) > > Would > git show fb1522e099f0 | patch -p1 > build/test > git reset --hard > git bisect good|bad > be the same thing? I would feel much more comfortable with that. Yes that should be equivalent. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part