On 20.03.24 01:49, bumyong.lee wrote: >>>> Hmmm. 6.8 final is due. Is that something we can live with? Or would >>>> it be a good idea to revert above commit for now and reapply it when >>>> something better emerged? I doubt that the answer is "yes, let's do >>>> that", but I have to ask. >>> >>> I couldn't find better way now. >>> I think it's better to follow you mentioned >> >> 6.8 is out, but that issue afaics was not resolved, so allow me to ask: >> did "submit a revert" fell through the cracks or is there some other >> solution in the works? Or am I missing something? > > "submit a revert" would fix the issue. but it would make another issue > that the errata[1] 719340 described. "Make" as it "that other issue was present before the culprit was applied"? Then that other issue does not matter due to the "no regression" rule and how Linus afaics wants to see it applied in practice. For details on the latter, see the quotes from him here: https://docs.kernel.org/process/handling-regressions.html Hence please submit a revert (or tell me if I misunderstood something) -- or of course a workaround for the other issue that does not cause the regression people reported. > [...] > [1]: https://developer.arm.com/documentation/genc008428/latest Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) -- Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking: https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.
