Re: [PATCH 5.13 000/800] 5.13.2-rc1 review

[Holger Kiehl]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2021, Pavel Machek wrote:

> Hi!
> > 
> > > On 14. 07. 21, 10:15, Holger Kiehl wrote:
> > > >> Yes, will try to do that. I think it will take some time ...
> > > >>
> > > > Hmm, I am doing something wrong?
> > > 
> > > No, you are not: -rcs are not tagged.
> > > 
> > > >     git clone
> > > >     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> > > >     linux-5.13.y
> > > >     cd linux-5.13.y/
> > > >     git tag|grep v5.13
> > > >     v5.13
> > > >     v5.13-rc1
> > > >     v5.13-rc2
> > > >     v5.13-rc3
> > > >     v5.13-rc4
> > > >     v5.13-rc5
> > > >     v5.13-rc6
> > > >     v5.13-rc7
> > > >     v5.13.1
> > > > 
> > > > There is no v5.13.2-rc1. It is my first time with 'git bisect'. Must be
> > > > doing something wrong. How can I get the correct git kernel rc version?
> > > 
> > > So just bisect v5.13.1..linux-5.13.y.
> > > 
> > But what do I say for bad?
> > 
> >    git bisect bad linux-5.13.y
> >    error: Bad rev input: linux-5.13.y
> > 
> > Just saying:
> > 
> >    git bisect bad
> >    git bisect good v5.13.1
> >    Bisecting: a merge base must be tested
> >    [62fb9874f5da54fdb243003b386128037319b219] Linux 5.13
> > 
> > If I read this correctly it now set v5.13 as bad and v5.13.1 as good.
> > How to set the correct bad?
> 
> You can use hashes instead of symbolic revisions, and that may be
> easier. I suspect you want to say "git bisect bad
> origin/linux-5.13.y". You can also just do git show and note the hash.
> 
> There's other option: git bisect can be quite confusing, but you are
> searching for a bug in linear history, so you can just git log
> --pretty=oneline into a file, then do the binary search
> manually. Should be 10 steps or so...
> 
Thanks! That 'git bisect bad origin/linux-5.13.y' got me going!

Holger