On 11.01.24 12:03, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 05:20:27PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: >> 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? Steve what's you opinion on reverting this? From https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAH2r5mu7e5-ORZbUyutteWVx2Nk6FPHfx7mMGCWSCEBAO6tdqg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ it looks like you added the stable tag to the culprit on purpose. FWIW, this thread stared there (just in case you missed earlier msgs): https://lore.kernel.org/all/a76b370f93cb928c049b94e1fde0d2da506dfcb2.camel@xxxxxxxxxx/ Ciao, Thorsten
