Re: Quick regression status pre 7.3-rc3

[Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>]

On 9/13/26 19:40, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Sept 2026 at 07:32, Thorsten Leemhuis
> <regressions@leemhuis.info> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Linus! Here is a quick report about a few unresolved regressions from
>> the current or the previous cycle that I found worth mentioning for one
>> reason or another; fixes are available for all of them:
> 
> I applied three patches for these issues and merged them. That
> hopefully takes care of at least the IPU bridge and the mt76 issues.

Thx!
> The rest appear to at least be in linux-next, and I left those alone.

Yeah, that's fine, so far it looks like that is a regression that is rare.
> Please do double-check that what I did matches what you expected...
Looks good from what I can see.

Side note: Some people suggested I should submit regression fixes like
the three you just applied directly to you as patches or through a git
tree you can pull.

Occasionally I think that might be a good idea, for example, in cases
where a maintainer is known to be on a vacation or something. That
approach also might make your Sunday evenings easier, too. If I'd sent
everything out on Thursday evenings (European time), it would also give
people a chance to speak up when needed before something stupid happens,
which is likely better than what we did here.

At the same time, I think that's a terrible idea, as bypassing the
maintainers' knowledge and setups (like subsystem-specific CIs)
obviously has many downsides and risks. Might also be a stupid idea for
the same reasons why the trivial tree failed and maybe was not a good
thing anyway.

Then again, I the risk of such bypassing might be a wake-up call
motivating some subsystems to mainline regression fixes faster.

In case you have any thoughts on that, I'd be interested to hear them.

Ciao, Thorsten