On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 08:33:21PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
Hi Martin,
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 07:06:10PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote:
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.
Thanks for confirming.
I had a small typo in the commit message of the revert commit, attached is an updated mbox with that fixed (afferomentioned -> aforementioned).
Now queued up for 5.10.y and 5.15.y, thanks!
greg k-h