On Saturday, 14 January 2023 16:30:05 CET Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 02:51:05PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote: > > On Thursday, 12 January 2023 12:03:24 CET Sjoerd Simons wrote: > > > Fwiw there is a general regression with AMDGPU MST on linux 6.1; tracked > > > > > > upstream here: > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2171 > > > > Thanks! About an hour ago the suggested fix was to revert commit > > 4d07b0bc403403438d9cf88450506240c5faf92f part of v6.1-rc1 > > > > https://kernel-team.pages.debian.net/kernel-handbook/ch-common-tasks.html# > > s4.2.2 describes a procedure to build a kernel with the proposed patch > > (attached). > > > > OdyX: Can you try to see whether that resolves the issue? > > Should we keep 6.1.y based kernel out of testing until this is clear? > As we aim though to have 6.1.y into bookworm I would see it as more > preferable to get 6.1.4 in for testing, we will need to followup as > well soonish with another interation for e.g. for fixing > CVE-2023-0266. As CVE-2023-0266 is fixed in 6.1.6, I'd suggest to upload that now, which I believe is ready to be uploaded already. That should keep 6.1.y out of testing for a few more days. > Now if it turns out that this is the same issue as the referenced > upstream, reverting I think we only should really revert the commit if > that's queued up for 6.1. There is currently some furhter discussion > on > https://lore.kernel.org/stable/dcf0612f-7d40-d607-e9aa-94599594e49f@amd.com > /T/#m38bdafb9c6c64b167ec94ac1bd131f1d2db66e40 > > Given the size of the revert, there is as well a chance to re-break > other parts. So preferring to closely follow upstream here, whatever > the decision will be. Agreed. I asked 'OdyX' to test the revert to make sure it would indeed fix *this* issue, IOW what I consider standard bug triaging. But even Daniel Vetter has SERIOUS 'issues' with the revert, next to the other people who weren't happy about it. So *I* wouldn't suggest applying it to Debian (although I don't think my opinion should have much weight). As for letting this bug _continue_ to prevent a migration, ie keep the RC status, I'm against it and for downgrading it to 'important'. You could opt to add a NEWS item to warn people about this potential issue. But the original report is about the *2nd* DisplayPort being 'broken'. On zaterdag 14 januari 2023 17:04:52 CET you wrote: > Basically this issue breaks all usage of Displayport MST on amdgpu systems. > Which roughly translates to breaking external monitors for everyone using > an USB-C docks with multiple display outputs (which is pretty common these > days) on AMD laptops. As well as those like myself who daisy-chain display > port monitors with an amdgpu using graphics card. I understand that would be annoying for you, but I don't think that it would affect the majority of our users. On 2023-01-13 10:25 Daniel Vetter wrote (in that thread): > Like yes it's a regression, but apparently not a blantantly obvious one The revert may cause much wider issues which upstream may or may not care (much) about. And it would be a divergence from upstream. Getting wider testing of the 6.1 kernel is something I find much more important. There could be other issues lurking which would not get exposure and therefor wouldn't get fixed until this bug would be fixed. Uploading 6.1.6 now would give (us/)upstream a couple of more days to figure out a potential *better* way to deal with it. One which should be acceptable for the upstream Stable Kernel maintainers. But I wouldn't let this bug cause further delays to Testing. Testing is meant to test things for the next Stable release and things can and will break from time to time. If people can't deal with that, they should not be running Testing. My 0.02
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.