On 14.12.23 18:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
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
Hi Greg,
Leo provided the patch series here:
https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20231216054715.7729-4-leo@xxxxxxxxx/
However, without a cover letter to it. Since we reverted Johannes' patch
both in 6.1.67 and 6.6.6 both patches may added to both series to
restore the original intent.
thx.
Philip
--
Best, Philip
