On 31.10.24 07:33, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:30:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 12.06.24 14:04, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:18:18PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> On 03.06.24 22:03, Mike wrote:
>>>>> On 29.05.24 11:06, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> I understand that 6.9-rc5[1] worked fine, but I guess it will take some
>>>>> time to be
>>>>> included in Debian stable, so having a patch for 6.1.x will be much
>>>>> appreciated.
>>>>> I do not have the time to follow the vanilla (latest) release as is
>>>>> likely the case for
>>>>> many other Linux users.
>>>>>
>>>> Still no reaction from the bluetooth developers. Guess they are busy
>>>> and/or do not care about 6.1.y. In that case:
>>>>
>>>> @Greg: do you might have an idea how the 6.1.y commit a13f316e90fdb1
>>>> ("Bluetooth: hci_conn: Consolidate code for aborting connections") might
>>>> cause this or if it's missing some per-requisite? If not I wonder if
>>>> reverting that patch from 6.1.y might be the best move to resolve this
>>>> regression. Mike earlier in
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c947e600-e126-43ea-9530-0389206bef5e@xxxxxxxxx/
>>>> confirmed that this fixed the problem in tests. Jeremy (who started the
>>>> thread and afaics has the same problem) did not reply.
>>>
>>> How was this reverted? I get a bunch of conflicts as this commit was
>>> added as a dependency of a patch later in the series.
>>>
>>> So if this wants to be reverted from 6.1.y, can someone send me the
>>> revert that has been tested to work?
>>
>> Mike, can you help out here, as you apparently managed a revert earlier?
>> Without you or someone else submitting a revert I fear this won't be
>> resolved...
>
> Trying to reboostrap this, as people running 6.1.112 based kernel
> seems still hitting the issue, but have not asked yet if it happens as
> well for 6.114.
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/1086447
>
> Mike, since I guess you are still as well affected as well, does the
> issue trigger on 6.1.114 for you and does reverting changes from
> a13f316e90fdb1 still fix the issue? Can you send your
> backport/changes?
Hmmm, no reply. Is there maybe someone in that bug that could create and
test a new revert to finally get this resolved upstream? Seem we
otherwise are kinda stuck here.
Ciao, Thorsten
