From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bregans-0.gladserv.net (bregans-0.gladserv.net [185.128.210.58]) (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 D500A29D280; Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:43:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.128.210.58 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756212190; cv=none; b=mFu1165aUv2aWKUKz3w37C9kHfCd8FDkZpAH+8aFV6BzFjN6rIGEzsxC5eM//cmuUBb4O+F4QqIedhNy9/3nZQEtoT2HdsrdD6rrUhaY7ztpFBPO74iNBqXZAkkoBHlIbpIkR/f3KmwSGru75h8QqOE15aIRBrFCM7A/uDo2oy8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1756212190; c=relaxed/simple; bh=s5zld7zXPuWyzN8MLCRNwOaJfUvYeDsjRE4AwqOsy/4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=TEgOWZONiBqQQUyWnCB/dsdXe/jhJ7CbianhGEquIU+uzbbuRtlXLR8xoOYY4vYb5GkJFNKiEpshUq9MJCV+wsVxuumwnkJhvSdzPhA5Rx9btxr+7xcmT4zXSdTKY6fKIh9l5haWn34a+HSrM8WFNLXPTqTqSJX+EcbRw9uq69o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=librecast.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=librecast.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.128.210.58 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=librecast.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=librecast.net Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 12:42:40 +0000 From: Brett A C Sheffield To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux@roeck-us.net, shuah@kernel.org, patches@kernelci.org, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org, pavel@denx.de, jonathanh@nvidia.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com, srw@sladewatkins.net, rwarsow@gmx.de, conor@kernel.org, hargar@microsoft.com, broonie@kernel.org, achill@achill.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.6 000/587] 6.6.103-rc1 review Message-ID: References: <20250826110952.942403671@linuxfoundation.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250826110952.942403671@linuxfoundation.org> Hi Greg, On 2025-08-26 13:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.6.103 release. > There are 587 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > let me know. > > Responses should be made by Thu, 28 Aug 2025 11:08:24 +0000. > Anything received after that time might be too late. Quick query - should we be backporting a known regression, even if it is in mainline presently, or do we wait until the fix is applied to mainline and *then* backport both patches? 9e30ecf23b1b ("net: ipv4: fix incorrect MTU in broadcast routes") introduces a regression which breaks IPv4 broadcast, which stops WOL working (breaking my CI system), among other things: https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/20250822165231.4353-4-bacs@librecast.net This regression has *already* been backported to: - 6.16.3 - 6.12.43 so I guess we wait for a fix for these. However, it is not yet present in the other stable kernels. The new stable release candidates today would spread the breakage to: - 6.6.y - 6.1.y - 5.15.y - 5.10.y Do we revert this patch in today's RCs for now, or keep it for full compatibility with mainline bugliness? Cheers, Brett --