On 1/20/23 10:39, Limonciello, Mario wrote: [ ... ]
Wayne is OOO for CNY, but let me update you.
Harry has sent out this series which is a collection of proper fixes. https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/113125/
Once that's reviewed and accepted, 4 of them are applicable for 6.1.
Thanks a lot for the update. There is talk about abandoning v6.1.y as LTS candidate, in large part due to this problem, so it would be great to get the problem fixed before that happens.
Any idea how soon that decision is happening? It seems that we have line of sight to a solution including back to 6.1.y pending that review. So perhaps we can put off the decision until those are landed.
I honestly don't know. All I know is that Greg is concerned about the number of regressions in v6.1.y, and this problem was one he specifically mentioned to me as potential reason to not designate 6.1.y as LTS kernel. The extensive discussion at [1] may be an indication that there is a problem, though that mostly refers to [lack of] test coverage and does not point to specific regressions.
Guenter
--- [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPDLWs-Z8pYkwQ13dEgHXqSCjiq4xVnjuAXTy26H3=8NZC...