Ciao Reinhard, On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 08:05:00PM +0100, Reinhard Eilmteiner wrote: > Ciao Salvatore, > > git bisect start > # status: waiting for both good and bad commits > # good: [8a243ecde1f6447b8e237f2c1c67c0bb67d16d67] Linux 6.12.57 > git bisect good 8a243ecde1f6447b8e237f2c1c67c0bb67d16d67 > # status: waiting for bad commit, 1 good commit known > # bad: [567bd8cbc2fe6b28b78864cbbbc41b0d405eb83c] Linux 6.12.63 > git bisect bad 567bd8cbc2fe6b28b78864cbbbc41b0d405eb83c > # bad: [7475d784169c7df48b0c55525fb862e06674d63c] Linux 6.12.58 > git bisect bad 7475d784169c7df48b0c55525fb862e06674d63c > # bad: [318a47068f7b88de838518897500d7509e3fe205] Linux 6.12.60 > git bisect bad 318a47068f7b88de838518897500d7509e3fe205 > > There you go.
Something went wrong in the above, because if you start the bisection you should at the first commit to test land at: $ git bisect good 8a243ecde1f6447b8e237f2c1c67c0bb67d16d67 status: waiting for bad commit, 1 good commit known $ git bisect bad 567bd8cbc2fe6b28b78864cbbbc41b0d405eb83c Bisecting: 698 revisions left to test after this (roughly 10 steps) [850c7f0537cc5a37ed012592907920637cc548b6] x86/microcode/AMD: Add Zen5 model 0x44, stepping 0x1 minrev So the next commit to test with the procedure was 850c7f0537cc5a37ed012592907920637cc548b6 and not as in the above log. Can you reset the bisection and start freshly with the procedure? Thanks for your time helping to identify the issue! FWIW, I have so far not seen other ceph related regressions reports upstream for 6.12.y, so this is puzzling me a bit. Regards, Salvatore
