On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Michal Hocko <mho...@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> The merge commit is empty and both 80dcc31fbe55 and e4b0db72be24 work
> properly but the merge is bad. So it seems like some of the commits in
> either branch has a side effect which needs other branch in order to
> reproduce.
>
> So've tried to bisect ^80dcc31fbe55 e4b0db72be24 and merged 80dcc31fbe55
> in each step.
Good extra work! Thanks.
> This lead to:
>
> commit 195daf665a6299de98a4da3843fed2dd9de19d3a
> Author: Ulrich Obergfell <uober...@redhat.com>
> Date: Tue Apr 14 15:44:13 2015 -0700
>
> watchdog: enable the new user interface of the watchdog mechanism
>
> The patch doesn't revert because of follow up changes so I have reverted
> all three:
> 692297d8f968 ("watchdog: introduce the hardlockup_detector_disable()
> function")
> b2f57c3a0df9 ("watchdog: clean up some function names and arguments")
> 195daf665a62 ("watchdog: enable the new user interface of the watchdog
> mechanism")
Hmm. I guess we should just revert those three then. Unless somebody
can see what the subtle interaction is.
Actually, looking closer, on the *other* side of the merge, the only
commit that looks like it might be conflicting is
b3738d293233 "watchdog: Add watchdog enable/disable all functions"
which is then used by
b37609c30e41 "perf/x86/intel: Make the HT bug workaround
conditional on HT enabled"
Does the problem go away if you revert *those* two commits instead?
At least that would tell is what the exact bad interaction is.
Adding Stephane (author of those watchdog/perf patches) to the Cc. And
PeterZ, who signed them off (Ingo also did, but was already on the
participants list).
Anybody see it?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
