Re: 2.6.29-rc8: Reported regressions from 2.6.28

[Jeff Chua]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:57 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?

Meanwhile, I'll try bisecting again.

Thanks,
Jeff.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/