Re: Kernel 5.3.x, 5.2.2+: VMware player suspend on 64/32 bit guests

[Woody Suwalski]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 10:50 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Woody,
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, Woody Suwalski wrote:
>
> > I have tried to "bisect" the config changes, and builds working/not
> > working between
> >  rc3-rc4-rc5, and come out with the same frustrating result, that
> > building a "clean" kernel is not producing the same behavoir as
> > incremental building while bisecting.
>
> So what you say is that:
>
>    make clean; make menuconfig (change some option); make
>
> and
>
>    make menuconfig (change some option); make
>
> produces different results?
>
> That needs to be fixed first. If you can't trust your build system then you
> cannot trust any result it produces.
>
> What's you actual build procedure?
>
The build procedure: a "clean" one - I have a script/make to build a
.deb by untar the src, patch, copy .config, run make oldconfig, run
make, package.

The bisect and config-change procedures were simpler - I was running
"git bisect bad" and make (followed by make modules_install, copy
bzImage to boot, rebuild initramfs) and reboot. For config changes -
drop new config, hand-merged in steps toward the presumed "good" one,
and run make, and install and reboot...

So I was not running explicitly make oldconfig every time, however I
believe that config has been updated to match other options
selected/unselected by make itself (so I have assumed that make
oldconfig has been automagically run sometime during the build).

But for the bisect procedure I did not run "make clean" at every step,
again - in my former bisections it was not needed, and actually saves
a lot of compilation time toward the end of bisection...

As such I could not directly answer your question - however yes -
building "cleanly" from source seems to produce different results than
doing it incrementaly...

Thanks, Woody