renesas/master bisection: igt-kms-rockchip.kms_vblank.pipe-A-wait-forked on rk3399-gru-kevin

[Guillaume Tucker]

On 14/12/2022 14:50, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 01:55:03PM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
> 
>> Maybe you could retrieve the original thread and rely to it with
>> the report?  That's the ideal way of following up on a patch I
>> think.  You can get the mbox file this way:
> 
>> ./kci_bisect get_mbox \
>>   --commit ca871659ec1606d33b1e76de8d4cf924cf627e34 \
>>   --kdir ~/src/linux
> 
> As a developer I tend to find this unhelpful, it makes it much more
> likely that the mail will get missed.  As a reporter it means there's
> more information to copy into the report.


Well it's up to you or anyone reporting the bisection result.
Base on my personal experience, I always got very quick replies
when doing this.

I don't see your point about copying more information though, I
would just open the mbox in my mail client to reply and paste the
content of the bisection report.  With a bit more work this could
be fully automated but that should be part of the bisection
rework using the new API & pipeline so sometime later in 2023...

>>> ... which is an old commit, added in v5.19-rc2, and which did not
>>> enter through the renesas tree at all?
> 
>> Do you mean this report shouldn't have been sent to you?
> 
> I do notice that the Renesas tree tends to get a *lot* of the bisection
> reports generated for some reason (vastly more than any other tree
> including mainline or -next), however this wasn't sent based on the tree
> at all - I just looked at the people involved with the commit.

In the past month, there were 15 bisection reports on renesas, 7
on linux-next and 28 on mainline for a total of 79 so 29 in other
trees.  So it's true renesas is getting quite a lot of them, it's
not entirely clear to me why that's the case but it's worth
investigating a bit.

See my other email about "kci_bisect get_recipients".

Thanks,
Guillaume