Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.bugs.dist,linux.kernel,linux.debian.kernel
Subject: Bug#1131025: [6.12.y regression] Regression with 58130e7ce6cb ("PCI/ERR: Ensure error recoverability at all times"): echo vfio-pci >driver_override does not work for DVB Adapter
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2026 15:50:01 +0100
Message-ID: <MDD97-aWFN-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <MzwSC-89iU-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <MDC3n-aVYW-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <MzwSC-89iU-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <MDC3n-aVYW-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <debbugs@buxtehude.debian.org>
Reply-To: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>, 1131025@bugs.debian.org
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-Cc: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
Received-Spf: pass (mxe9fb: connection is authenticated)
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 41
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.bugs.dist:1287661 linux.kernel:1743533 linux.debian.kernel:91832

On 3/28/26 14:37, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> 
> Bernd Schumacher reported in Debian (report and report from bisection
> in https://bugs.debian.org/1131025) a 6.12.y specific regression of
> 58130e7ce6cb ("PCI/ERR: Ensure error recoverability at all times"):

TWIMC, "6.12.y specific" seems to be really the case here, to quote from
https://bugs.debian.org/1131025: ""Installing
linux-{image,modules,base,binary}-6.19.8+deb14-amd64_6.19.8-1_amd64.deb
and booting 6.19.8+deb14-amd64 (6.19.8-1) works without the described
issues.""

> Anything else we can provide to identify the issue present in 6.12.y
> kernels?

First: many thx for forwarding this regression and a lot of others
similarly in the past; it's great. There is one thing that could make
them a lot better: if you always make it unmistakably obvious (ideally
at the top of the mail) if mainline is affected or not (here it was
close, yes, but sadly some people write "specific" without ever testing
mainline, so it was not unmistakably :-/ ).

Overall, it IMHO is best to keep this mental model: mainline and
stable/longterm series are maintained by different people -- and those
from one group do not care about the regressions the other party has to
handle.

In practice it's of course way more nuanced: for example, many (but not
all!) mainline developers help the stable team out somewhat, and some of
them might even handle regression reports with longterm kernels; and the
members of the stable team are mainline developers as well, so when a
bug falls into their domain, it might not be important.

But to avoid delays or things falling through the cracks, it's really
best to always check if mainline is affected – and report regressions
like a mainline problem using a mainline version if they are and leave
the stable team out of it, as they most likely will leave things to the
mainline developers. And if it's stable-specific regression, state early
that mainline is not affected.

Ciao, Thorsten