Re: WARNING in mark_lock (3)

[Sven Eckelmann]

On Thursday, 28 November 2019 09:54:15 CET Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
[...]
> > I was thinking more about rerunning the same bisect but tell it to assume
> > "crashed: general protection fault in batadv_iv_ogm_queue_add" as OK instead
> > of assuming that it is a crashed like the previous "crashed: WARNING in
> > mark_lock". Just to get a non-bogus bisect result. Or try to rerun the
> > bisect between 40e220b4218b and 89d57dddd7d319ded00415790a0bb3c954b7e386
> 
> But... but this done by a program. What do you mean by "tell it"?

Sorry that I asked about what the infrastructure around syzbot can do and
how the interaction with it looks like.

Kind regards,
	Sven

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.