On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 03:32:47PM +0700, Philip Müller wrote: > On 14.12.23 15:24, Berg, Johannes wrote: > > > > > So Greg, how we move forward with this one? Keep the revert or > > > > > integrate Leo's work on top of Johannes'? > > > > > > > > It would be "resend with the fixes rolled in as a new backport". > > > > > > No, the new change needs to be a seprate commit. > > > > Oh, I stand corrected. I thought you said earlier you'd prefer a new, fixed, backport of the change that was meant to fix CQM but broke the locking, rather than two new commits. > > > > > > > Johannes, how important is your fix for the stable 6.x kernels when > > > > > done properly? > > > > > > > > Well CQM was broken completely for anything but (effectively) brcmfmac ... > > > That means roaming decisions will be less optimal, mostly. > > > > > > > > Is that annoying? Probably. Super critical? I guess not. > > > > > > Is it a regression or was it always like this? > > > > It was a regression. > > > > johannes > > So basically the reversed patch by Johannes gets re-applied as it was and > Leo's patch added to the series of patches to fix it. That is the way I > currently ship it in my kernels so far. Great, can someone please send the series like this with your: > We can add a Tested-by from my end if wanted. that would be wonderful. greg k-h
