Hi Thorsten, On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 10:13 PM Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12.09.23 21:09, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 6:40 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > > Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 31.08.23 00:20, patchwork-bot+bluetooth@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>> This patch was applied to bluetooth/bluetooth-next.git (master) > >>> by Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@xxxxxxxxx>: > >>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 13:59:36 -0700 you wrote: > >>>> From: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.von.dentz@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> When HCI_QUIRK_STRICT_DUPLICATE_FILTER is set LE scanning requires > >>>> periodic restarts of the scanning procedure as the controller would > >>>> consider device previously found as duplicated despite of RSSI changes, > >>>> but in order to set the scan timeout properly set le_scan_restart needs > >>>> to be synchronous so it shall not use hci_cmd_sync_queue which defers > >>>> the command processing to cmd_sync_work. > >>>> > >>>> [...] > >>> > >>> Here is the summary with links: > >>> - Bluetooth: hci_sync: Fix handling of HCI_QUIRK_STRICT_DUPLICATE_FILTER > >>> https://git.kernel.org/bluetooth/bluetooth-next/c/52bf4fd43f75 > >> > >> That is (maybe among others?) a fix for a regression from 6.1, so why > >> was this merged into a "for-next" branch instead of a branch that > >> targets the current cycle? > > > > We were late for including it to 6.5, that said the regression was > > introduced in 6.4, > > 6.4? From the fixes tag it sounded like it was 6.1. Whatever, doesn't > make a difference, because: It seems I had it confused with HCI_QUIRK_BROKEN_LE_CODED, so you are right about this affecting from 6.1 onwards. > That answer doesn't answer the question afaics, as both 6.1 and 6.4 were > released in the past year -- the fix thus should not wait till the next > merge window, unless it's high risk or something. See this statement > from Linus: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wis_qQy4oDNynNKi5b7Qhosmxtoj1jxo5wmB6SRUwQUBQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Thanks for the feedback, I will try to push fixes to net more often. > > but I could probably have it marked for stable just > > to make sure it would get backported to affected versions. > > That would be great, too! Well now that it has already been merged via -next tree shall we still attempt to mark it as stable? Perhaps we need to check if it was not backported already based on the Fixes tag. > 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. -- Luiz Augusto von Dentz
