On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 05:20:27PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi > > Sorry if this is to prematurely to ask already again. > > On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 01:02:16PM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > > On 06.01.24 12:34, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 11:40:58AM +0100, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > > >> > > >> Does this problem also happen in mainline, e.g. with 6.7-rc8? > > > > > > Thanks a lot for replying back. So far I can tell, the regression is > > > in 6.1.y only > > > > Ahh, good to know, thx! > > > > > For this reason I added to regzbot only "regzbot ^introduced > > > 18b02e4343e8f5be6a2f44c7ad9899b385a92730" which is the commit in > > > v6.1.68. > > > > Which was the totally right thing to do, thx. Guess I sooner or later > > will add something like "#regzbot tag notinmainline" to avoid the > > ambiguity we just cleared up, but maybe that's overkill. > > Do we have already a picture on the best move forward? Should the > patch and the what depends on it be reverted or was someone already > able to isolate where the problem comes from specifically for the > 6.1.y series? I guess I can just revert the single commit here? Can someone send me the revert that I need to do so as I get it right? thanks, greg k-h
