On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:01:25PM -0700, Marc Orr wrote: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:25 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:18:38AM -0700, Marc Orr wrote: > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:03 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:42:42AM -0700, Jianxiong Gao wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 1:11 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I still fail to understand why you can not just use the 5.10.y kernel or > > > > > > newer. What is preventing you from doing this if you wish to use this > > > > > > type of hardware? This is not a "regression" in that the 5.4.y kernel > > > > > > has never worked with this hardware before, it feels like a new feature. > > > > > > > > > > > NVMe + SWIOTLB is not a new feature. From my understanding it should > > > > > be supported by 5.4.y kernel correctly. Currently without the patch, any > > > > > NVMe device (along with some other devices that relies on offset to > > > > > work correctly), could be broken if the SWIOTLB is used on a 5.4.y kernel. > > > > > > > > Then do not do that, as obviously it never worked without your fixes, so > > > > this isn't a "regression". > > > > > > NVMe + SWIOTLB works fine without this bug fix. By fine I mean that a > > > guest kernel using this configuration boots and runs stably for weeks > > > and months under general-purpose usage. The bug that this patch set > > > fixes was only encountered when a user tried to format an xfs > > > filesystem under a RHEL guest kernel. > > > > > > > And again, why can you not just use 5.10.y? > > > > > > For our use case, this fixes the guest kernel, not the host kernel. > > > The guest distros that we support use 5.4 kernels. We do not control > > > the kernel that the distros deploy for usage as a guest OS on cloud. > > > We only control the host kernel. > > > > And how are you going to get your guest kernels to update to these > > patches? What specific ones are you concerned about? > > > > RHEL ignores stable kernel updates, so if you are worried about them, > > please just work with that company directly. > > We support COS as a guest [1], which does base their kernel on 5.4 > LTS. If these patches were accepted into 5.4 LTS, they would > automatically get picked up by COS. > > [1] https://cloud.google.com/container-optimized-os Then go work with that group to add this "required" set of new features for your cloud systems that require this as again, I fail to see how this is a "regression" at all. Maybe I should just go rip out these from 5.10.y as well as it feels like a _very_ platform-specific issue that you all are having here. thanks, greg k-h
