# Re: AAARGH bisection is hard (Re: \[2.6.39 regression\] X locks up hard right after logging in)

- From: Andrew Lutomirski \<hidden\>
- Date: 2011-05-13 13:38:40 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2011/05/3714806
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2011/05/3714413/t.md

```text
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Christian Couder
[ref] wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Andrew Lutomirski [ref] wrote:
>>
>> OK, this sucks.  In the course of bisecting this, I've hit two other
>> apparently unrelated bugs that prevent my from testing large numbers
>> of kernels.  Do I have two questions:
>>
>> 1. Anyone have any ideas from looking at the log?
>>
>> It looks like most of what's left is network code, so cc netdev.
>>
>> 2.  The !&$#@ bisection is skipping all over the place.  I've seen
>> 2.6.37 versions and all manner of -rc's out of order.  Linus, and
>> other people who like pontificating about git bisection: is there any
>> way to get the bisection to follow Linus' tree?  I think that if
>> bisect could be persuaded to consider only changes that are reached by
>> following only the *first* merge parent all the way from the bad
>> revision to the good revision, then the bisection would build versions
>> that were at least good enough for Linus to pull and might have fewer
>> bisection-killing bugs.
>>
>> (This isn't a new idea [1], and git rev-list --bisect --first-parent
>> isn't so bad except that it doesn't bisect.)
>
> Did you forget to put the reference [1] in your email? Was it this one
> you were thinking about:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/165433/

No, it was this:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5638211/how-do-you-get-git-bisect-to-ignore-merged-branches

--Andy

>
> ?
>
> Thanks,
> Christian.
>
```