Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: dma: Drop cache invalidation from arch_dma_prep_coherent()"

From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
	andersson@kernel.org, sumit.semwal@linaro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: dma: Drop cache invalidation from arch_dma_prep_coherent()"
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:32:51 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y4oos/xXL+tLT7E7@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <395ad6ef-eb54-ec7e-e131-714f23c84d7a@leemhuis.info>

On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 05:27:24PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02.12.22 17:10, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 11:34:30AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> On 02.12.22 11:03, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 09:54:05AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>>> On 02.12.22 09:26, Amit Pundir wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 at 23:15, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 10:29:39AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>>>>>> Has any progress been made to fix this regression? It afaics is not a
> >>>>>>> release critical issue, but well, it still would be nice to get this
> >>>>>>> fixed before 6.1 is released.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The only (nearly) risk-free "fix" for 6.1 would be to revert the commit
> >>>>>> that exposed the driver bug. It doesn't fix the actual bug, it only
> >>>>>> makes it less likely to happen.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I like the original commit removing the cache invalidation as it shows
> >>>>>> drivers not behaving properly
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah, I understand that, but I guess it's my job to ask at this point:
> >>>> "is continuing to live with the old behavior for one or two more cycles"
> >>>> that much of a problem"?
> >>>
> >>> That wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that I haven't see any efforts
> >>> from the Qualcomm side to actually fix the drivers [...]
> >>
> >> Thx for sharing the details. I can fully understand your pain. But well,
> >> in the end it looks to me like this commit it intentionally breaking
> >> something that used to work -- which to my understanding of the "no
> >> regression rule" is not okay, even if things only worked by chance and
> >> not flawless.
> > 
> > "no regressions" for userspace code, this is broken, out-of-tree driver
> > code, right?
> 
> If so: apologies. But that's not the impression I got, as Amit wrote "I
> can reproduce this crash on vanilla v6.1-rc1 as well with no out-of-tree
> drivers." here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/CAMi1Hd3H2k1J8hJ6e-Miy5+nVDNzv6qQ3nN-9929B0GbHJkXEg@mail.gmail.com/

Ah, I missed that.

Ok, what in-tree drivers are having problems being buggy?  I can't seem
to figure that out from that report at all.  Does anyone know?

thanks,

greg k-h