Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Dec 2014 00:02:32 -0600 | Subject | Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4 | From | Chris Rorvick <> |
| |
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > Put another way: "bad" is generally more trustworthy (because you > actively saw the bug),
Makes sense, but ...
> while a "good" _before_ a subsequent bad is > also trustworthy (because if the "good" kernel contained the bug and > you should have marked it bad, we'd then go on to test all the commits > that were *not* the bug, so we'd never see a "bad" kernel again).
wouldn't marking a bad commit "good" cause you to not see a *good* kernel again? Marking it "good" would seem push the search away from the bug toward the current "bad" commit.
| |