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).

Regards,
Salvatore