On 2024-03-28 21:09, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 12:36, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> [CCing Linus, in case I say something to his disliking] >> >> On 22.03.24 05:57, Nick Bowler wrote: >>> >>> Just a friendly reminder that this issue still happens on Linux 6.8 and >>> reverting commit 9b2f753ec237 as indicated below is still sufficient to >>> resolve the problem. >> >> FWIW, that commit 9b2f753ec23710 ("sparc64: Fix cpu_possible_mask if >> nr_cpus is set") is from v4.8. Reverting it after all that time might >> easily lead to even bigger trouble. > > I'm definitely not reverting a patch from almost a decade ago as a regression. > > If it took that long to find, it can't be that critical of a regression. > > So yes, let's treat it as a regular bug. And let's bring in Andreas to > the discussion too (although presumably he has seen it on the > sparclinux mailing list). Yes, I am aware and I agree we should treat it as a regular bug. Reverting it as a regression fix would lead to followup issues like canceling the effect of commit ebb99a4c12e4 ("sparc64: Fix irq stack bootmem allocation.") but with misleading comments left in place. Sam's fix looks like a good solution for me to pick up to my for-next branch. Thanks, Andreas