[resend with proper subject, sorry for the noise] [note to self: don't get distracted when writing the subject] On 21.09.22 08:53, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi Greg! As you likely heard already, 5.19.9 introduced a regression > that breaks Thunderbolt and USB-C docks (and apparently Wifi in some > cases as well) on quite a few (many?) modern systems. It's one of those > problems where I think "hey, we ideally should fix this in stable as > fast as possible" we briefly talked about last week on the LPC hallways. > That made me wonder how to actually archive that in this particular case > while keeping all involved parties happy and not skipping any CI testing > queues considered important. > > FWIW, here are a few few reports about the issue (I assume there are > some for Arch Linux and openSUSE Tumbleweed as well, but didn't check). > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/485A6EA5-6D58-42EA-B298-8571E97422DE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216497 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2128458 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127753 > > A revert of the culprit (9cd4f1434479f ("iommu/vt-d: Fix possible > recursive locking in intel_iommu_init()"); in 5.19.y it's 9516acba29e3) > for mainline is here: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220920081701.3453504-1-baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > A few hours ago the revert was queued to get send to Joerg: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20220921024054.3570256-1-baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > I fear it could easily take another week to get this fixed in stable > depending on how fast the patch makes it to mainline and the timing of > the next 5.19.y release and its -rc phase. That to me sounds like way > too long for a problem like this that apparently plagues quite a few > people. > > That made me wonder: would you in cases like this be willing to start > the -rc phase for a interim 5.19.y release with just that revert while > it's still heading towards mainline? Then the CI systems that test > stable -rcs could chew on things already; and the new stable release > could go out right after the revert landed in mainline (unless the > testing finds any problems, of course). > > Ciao, Thorsten > >
