On 02.04.23 07:02, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > On 01.04.23 22:53, Leonard Lausen wrote: >> >> the revert wasn't applied to v6.2 series. Can you please apply it and include it for v6.2.10? I pointed Linus to this and he merged the revert directly; and it's already queued for the next 6.2.y release: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-%3DwhRs_MavKCqtV3%3DK31dq9Z6HzbaG8Uxo-EV%3DuRxdsXduA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/f95b8ea79c47c0ad3d18f45ad538f9970e414d1f https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/commit/?id=902f9eb696dfdd40e88d99bafa34ea25f1f9e927 Now to the remaining venus regression: >> March 6, 2023 at 5:43 AM, "Javier Martinez Canillas" <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 3/1/2023 3:15 PM, Dikshita Agarwal wrote: >>>>> On 2/28/2023 9:33 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>>>>> Javier Martinez Canillas<javierm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>>> Vikash Garodia<vgarodia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stan, could you please help with the revert and a pull request having this revert >>>>>>>> alongwith other pending changes ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other fix posted is "media: venus: dec: Fix capture formats enumeration order": >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/patch/20230210081835.2054482-1-javierm@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> Hi Javier, >>>> >>>> Thanks for this patch "media: venus: dec: Fix capture formats >>>> enumeration order". >>>> >>>> Somehow I can't find it in my mailbox to be able to reply there. >>>> >>>> Could you please explain what is the regression you see here? >>>> >>> >>> You can find the thread and explanation of the issue here: >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y+KPW18o%2FDa+N8UI@xxxxxxxxxx/T/ >>> >>> But Stanimir already picked it and sent a PR for v6.3 including it. >> >> While "media: venus: dec: Fix capture formats enumeration order" may have been >> applied to v6.3, > > To me it looks like it was submitted[1], but not yet applied even to the > media tree[2] -- while guess, maybe due problems mentioned in[3]? Or am > I missing something? > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230329211655.100276-1-stanimir.k.varbanov@xxxxxxxxx/ > [2] https://git.linuxtv.org/media_tree.git/log/?h=fixes > [3] > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230329214310.2503484-1-jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx/ I only notice now: from [1] above it looks like that regression fix was applied to a tree that seems to be intended for 6.4. Is that okay for everybody, or should we ask Linus to pick this up as well (unless of course Mauro shows up and forwards the patch, of course)? They fix a regression from 5.19 afaics, so not a fresh problem, but apparently one that bugged a few people recently. 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.
