From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 546F98460 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E547C433EF; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 15:38:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1681745907; bh=4i6VBofjlrioISVoBLcLekp8PdpA1EPCRmK3FSnQyjk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=F9hpOc02bKSLJI8cRStSVufD3UbASclxCS+TDx0H92O6DXnglOcDzZTR0OZeE5Uj3 v2BRb9Yr7nx1pCZdCBKYWCZW0gYwjMUu8fP3UbFdYLkmYAG0vemEI6xazrz8NrDFVB joSuRH21sT0QT14R0zJrwmPFqWKyq3NEmpATgbbMpFIy4ZPH+F5u7TRkEG7bz9EbRI aI+emMSHyQ3e28cv0Cnje78FGCwYOXvQErZvsp2ywS2MEBiV2OXaNJaO/hIfs9UKl0 KiZyVLQ7UCpYw/Ra501UXuAxa7MkcKNwZvpRfvv6T0EXWIKS+eq0jiNWrIPBZMSVDG s7ApjzsFz9FEA== Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 08:38:25 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Saeed Mahameed Cc: Paul Moore , Leon Romanovsky , Linux regressions mailing list , Saeed Mahameed , Shay Drory , netdev@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org, Tariq Toukan Subject: Re: Potential regression/bug in net/mlx5 driver Message-ID: <20230417083825.6e034c75@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20230413075421.044d7046@kernel.org> <20230413152150.4b54d6f4@kernel.org> <20230413155139.22d3b2f4@kernel.org> <20230413202631.7e3bd713@kernel.org> <20230414173445.0800b7cf@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 21:40:35 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote: > >What do we do now, tho? If the main side effect of a revert is that > >users of a newfangled device with an order of magnitude lower > >deployment continue to see a warning/error in the logs - I'm leaning > >towards applying it :( > > I tend to agree with you but let me check with the FW architect what he has > to offer, either we provide a FW version check or another more accurate > FW cap test that could solve the issue for everyone. If I don't come up with > a solution by next Wednesday I will repost your revert in my next net PR > on Wednesday. You can mark it awaiting-upstream for now, if that works for > you. OK, sounds good.