On 1/20/23 10:39, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
[ ... ]
Wayne is OOO for CNY, but let me update you.
Harry has sent out this series which is a collection of proper fixes.
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/113125/
Once that's reviewed and accepted, 4 of them are applicable for 6.1.
Thanks a lot for the update. There is talk about abandoning v6.1.y as
LTS candidate, in large part due to this problem, so it would be great
to get the problem fixed before that happens.
Any idea how soon that decision is happening? It seems that we have line
of sight to a solution including back to 6.1.y pending that review. So perhaps
we can put off the decision until those are landed.
I honestly don't know. All I know is that Greg is concerned about
the number of regressions in v6.1.y, and this problem was one
he specifically mentioned to me as potential reason to not designate
6.1.y as LTS kernel. The extensive discussion at [1] may be an
indication that there is a problem, though that mostly refers to
[lack of] test coverage and does not point to specific regressions.
Guenter
---
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPDLWs-Z8pYkwQ13dEgHXqSCjiq4xVnjuAXTy26H3=8NZCpV_g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
