On Wed, 2023-03-08 at 17:32 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> hi Martin, hi Sreekanth,
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 08:16:35PM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >
> > Hi Salvatore!
> >
> > > Sreekanth and Martin is this still on your radar?
> >
> > Broadcom will have to provide a suitable fix for the relevant older
> > stable releases. It is the patch author's responsibility to provide
> > backports.
> >
> > > as 9df650963bf6 picking as well is not an option.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Thanks to Martin Wilck from SUSE to get me understanding the picture.
> The problem is that e0e0747de0ea ("scsi: mpt3sas:
> Fix return value check of dma_get_required_mask()") was backported to
> several series. In mainline though the mis-merge did undo that. So I
> believe the right thing would be to revert first in the stable series
> where it was applied (5.10.y, 5.15.y) the commit e0e0747de0ea ("scsi:
> mpt3sas: Fix return value check of dma_get_required_mask()") and
> then
> on top of this revert apply the patches:
>
> 9df650963bf6 ("scsi: mpt3sas: Don't change DMA mask while
> reallocating pools")
> 1a2dcbdde82e ("scsi: mpt3sas: re-do lost mpt3sas DMA mask fix")
> 06e472acf964 ("scsi: mpt3sas: Remove usage of dma_get_required_mask()
> API")
>
> Attached mbox file implements this.
>
> Does that looks now good for resolving the regression?
>
Yes, this makes sense and it's actually the same thing I did for our
5.14 series. Thanks for re-figuring it out, the matter is really
confusing.
Regards,
Martin
