Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 04:47:10PM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >> On 24.05.23 15:07, Stefan Wahren wrote: >> > >> > Am 23.05.23 um 21:44 schrieb Sergey Organov: >> >> "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" >> >> <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> >> Solving this would need to identify the cause of interrupts being >> >> disabled for prolonged times, and nobody volunteered to investigate this >> >> further. One suspect, the Linux serial console, has been likely excluded >> >> already though, as not actually being in use for printk() output. >> >> >> > >> > I don't think that we can exclude the serial console as a whole, i never >> > made such a observation. But at least we can exclude kernel logging on >> > the debug UART. >> >> Stefan, just wondering: was this ever addressed upstream? I assume it's >> not, just wanted to be sure. >> >> I'm a bit unsure what to do with this and consider asking Greg for >> advice, as he applied the patch. On one hand it's *IMHO* clearly a >> regression (but for the record, some people involved in the discussion >> claim it's not). OTOH the culprit was applied more than a year ago now, >> so reverting it might cause more trouble than it's worth at this point, >> as that could lead to regressions for other users. > > I'll be glad to revert this, but for some reason I thought that someone > was working on a "real fix" here. Stefan, is that not the case? As far as I understand, the "real fix" is to be where interrupts are being disabled for prolonged times in given specific kernel build, and nobody is looking for that place. In other words, I'm one who thinks the commit in question is not a regression per se, so I'm not sure it should be reverted. Thanks, Sergey Organov
