On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 8:28 PM Karol Herbst <kherbst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 4:04 PM Thorsten Leemhuis > <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 09.08.23 15:13, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > If this can't be fixed quickly, I suppose it's safer to revert it from > > > 6.4.y for now. 6.5 is still being cooked, but 6.4.x is already in > > > wide deployment, hence the regression has to be addressed quickly. > > > > feel free to send reverts to mainline and add my r-by tage to it and I > can push those changes up. Sadly those patches fixed another > use-after-free, but it seems like we have to take another shot unless > somebody does have time to look into it promptly. > uhm and the two patches around that one, 752a281032b2d6f4564be827e082bde6f7d2fd4fand ea293f823a8805735d9e00124df81a8f448ed1ae > > Good luck with that. To quote > > https://docs.kernel.org/process/handling-regressions.html : > > > > ``` > > Regarding stable and longterm kernels: > > > > [...] > > > > * Whenever you want to swiftly resolve a regression that recently also > > made it into a proper mainline, stable, or longterm release, fix it > > quickly in mainline; when appropriate thus involve Linus to fast-track > > the fix (see above). That's because the stable team normally does > > neither revert nor fix any changes that cause the same problems in mainline. > > ``` > > > > Note the "normally" in there, so there is a chance. > > > > Ciao, Thorsten > >
