Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. On 22.02.23 17:44, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:37:23AM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 08:06:41AM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>> is anything blocking mainline inclusion of this patch? >>> >>> I appCiao, 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.lied these to 6.2/scsi-fixes last week. The patches have been >>> sitting in a topic branch for a bit due to the three-way conflict >>> between fixes, queue, and upstream. >> >> It landed in 6.2-rc4 recently in fact. Thank you! >> >> Would it be posssible to backport the fix as well back to the stable >> series affected? >> >> In Debian we have the reports as per https://bugs.debian.org/1022126 >> where the issue was introduced back in 5.10.y. Context in >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/CAK=zhgr=MYn=-mrz3gKUFoXG_+EQ796bHEWSdK88o1Aqamby7g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> . > > Friendly ping on this, can this change be backported as well to the > relevant stable series? It would apply already cleanly to 6.1.y, but > due to 9df650963bf6 ("scsi: mpt3sas: Don't change DMA mask while > reallocating pools") it might need some additional review for the > older stable series (in particular of interest due to the above for > 5.10.y). This afaics is a reasonable request for 6.1, as this seems to be (Salvatore, please correct me if I'm wrong) a regression caused by 0e0747de0ea3 ("scsi: mpt3sas: Fix return value check of dma_get_required_mask()"), which was merged for 6.0-rc7. Hence allow me to ask: Sreekanth and Martin, is there a reason why this request (and the earlier one a month ago) was apparently met with silence? Or was progress made in between and I just missed it? Salvatore, for 5.10 things are a bit more complicated, as someone would need to do the work. Sometimes that work is done by the driver developers and maintainers as well, but strictly speaking it's the duty of those that backported the change to 5.10.y. Didn't check who did that this case (the stable team?); but well, maybe let's sort this out for 6.1.y first. > Thanks already! If the change for older series needs some additional > testing we might ask the affected users from the Debian bug 1022126 to > test on 5.10.y as well. 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.
