On 16.06.23 14:17, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > On 6/16/23 16:25, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >> On 16.06.23 09:45, Nicolas Escande wrote: >>> On Thu Jun 15, 2023 at 2:54 PM CEST, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >>>> On 10.06.23 08:44, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:55:57PM +0200, Nicolas Escande wrote: >> >>>> Hmmm, Felix did not reply. But let's ignore that for now. >>> I haven't seen mails from felix on the list for a few days, I'm guessing he's >>> unavailable for now but I'll hapilly wait. >> >> Okay. >> >>>> Nicolas, I noticed there are a few patches in next that refer to the >>>> culprit. Might be worth giving this series a try: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230314095956.62085-1-nbd@xxxxxxxx/ >>> Well this series already landed in 6.4 and that is the version I did my initial >>> testing with. So no luck there. >> >> What? Ohh, sorry for the noise, I had missed that they were in mainline >> already. > > Should this be removed from tracking as inconclusive? Ehh, why? Afaics this is still a regression, just not one the reporter considers urgent; that is fine for me, unless more people start to report the problem. 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.
