On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 2:25 PM Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 2:01 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 1:43 PM Bastien Nocera <hadess@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2022-12-07 at 11:19 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2022, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > > > > > > > > > Agree, but OTOH, Rafael, your mouse is not brand new AFAICT, so I > > > > > am > > > > > worried that you won't be the only one complaining we just killed > > > > > their > > > > > mouse. So I think the even wiser solution would be to delay (and so > > > > > revert in 6.1 or 6.2) the 2 patches that enable hid++ on all > > > > > logitech > > > > > mice (8544c812e43ab7bdf40458411b83987b8cba924d and > > > > > 532223c8ac57605a10e46dc0ab23dcf01c9acb43). > > > > > > > > If we were not at -rc8 timeframe, I'd be in favor to coming up with > > > > proper > > > > fix still for 6.1. But as things currently are, let's just revert > > > > those > > > > and reschedule them with proper fix for 6.2+. > > > > > > Has anyone seen any other reports? > > It's not so much about how many reports, but *what* the end result is. > If the device were working-ish, that would have been OK. But here the > device is completely ignored by the kernel which basically enters the > "no regression rule". > > > > > > > Because, honestly, seeing work that adds support for dozens of devices > > > getting tossed out at the last minute based on a single report with no > > > opportunity to fix the problem is really frustrating. > > I know, and I feel your pain as I was about to have the same last week > for HID-BPF. But as much as I hate dropping patches from the queue, > not being able to have at least a week to fix it properly ends up with > "fixes" that are broken and that might break other devices. Talking > from experience as my first fix from last week was exactly in that > category. > > > > > Well, that's why I sent patches to address this particular case > > without possibly breaking anything else. > > My concern is more that we now have a data point were the series broke > a device (pretty badly) and if (when) this happens shortly after 6.1 > is getting released, we would have to say, oh yes, we know, so we need > to patch the kernel because our driver is buggy, and we knew it. This > is not acceptable, and I am sure that if Linus reads that thread he > would revert the 2 patches or maybe more. Well, I agree. > > > > Improvements can be made on top of them and the blocklist entry added > > by patch [2/2] need not stay there forever, FWIW. > > > > I need to check with Jiri, but there is a chance we can re-introduce > this in 6.2. This way we will have slightly more time to fix it in a > proper way. Sounds good to me.
