Re: Patch "ice: fix retry for AQ command 0x06EE" has been added to the 5.15-stable tree

[Dawid Osuchowski <dawid.osuchowski@linux.intel.com>]

On 2026-03-17 4:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 04:24:15PM +0100, Dawid Osuchowski wrote:
>> On 2026-03-17 4:14 PM, Dawid Osuchowski wrote:
>>> On 2026-03-17 1:11 PM, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>>>> If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
>>>> please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey stable maintainers!
>>>
>>> This patch **depends heavily** on the change "ice: reintroduce retry
>>> mechanism for indirect AQ" which failed to apply for 5.15-stable and
>>> 6.1-stable trees.
>>>
>>> Until I can try to resolve the conflicts and resend, it might be
>>> necessary to pull this change from the 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable trees
>>> immediately as it will result in multiple WARN messages being printed
>>> into the dmesg upon issuing 'ethtool -m' on a interface under the 'ice'
>>> driver control.
>>
>> !!! FALSE ALARM - ABORT !!!
>>
>> I'm sorry, a bit of a chaotic day here at work...
>>
>> I was worried the lack of the "ice: reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect
>> AQ" patch will result in issues for users. It will not, as my colleague
>> Jakub Staniszewski politely informed me that the 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable
>> doesn't have the code from Michal Schmidt that we "reverted" using "ice:
>> reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ". No warnings will be printed to
>> dmesg and everything should work correctly...
>>
>> Once again I am very sorry
> 
> No worries, I'd much rather people warn us and then say "nope, we were
> wrong" instead of not saying anything if they think there might be a
> problem.  So all is good here, thanks!
> 
> greg k-h


Thanks for understanding Greg.

Let me double check if this will break or not finally. I went in very 
hot headed and I apologize about that. I'll cool off a bit and compile 
the 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable trees and test on real hardware if this 
can remain in the trees unchanged or if some modifications are necessary.

I'll also read up on the stable process more in-depth to see how long it 
takes from the patch queue / linux-stable-rc for a given tree to be 
actually part of the next 6.1.y/5.15.y release.

Best regards
-Dawid