Hey, On 9/23/26 09:19, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 18/09/2026 12:19, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> Hey, >> >> On 9/18/26 11:44, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >>> >>> On 18/09/2026 09:31, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>>> On 2026-07-09 13:36:57 [+0200], Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>>>> Hey, >>>> Hi Maarten, >>>> >>>>> Yeah the problem was similar, I believe neither check should exist, >>>>> instead the caller should give this information like the comment mentions. >>>> >>>> Any update here? Maybe I have been left out on reposts. Any chance this >>>> gets in before the LTS of this year gets out? >>> >>> Side question, there was a bunch of sashiko issues against v4 - have those >>> been addressed? >>> >>> As today it is the first time I see patch 7/7 which is a bit of a scary >>> one. I have to ask how much does Intel commit to fixing out any potential >>> breakage given the status of i915? >>> >>> + other maintainers FYI >> Patch 7/7 addresses a real issue, it just happened to be more easily found >> on PREEMPT_RT. > > In this case, have you pulled it out from the series and sent standalone? > >> I haven't had much time to look at PREEMPT_RT lately, I'll see if I can get >> some time to look at >> sashiko, but lack of reviews have not been helping. >> >> Every time I send out revised patches, it takes a few months before I >> receive a response. >> By that time I have moved on to other projects, and finding time takes a lot >> of time again. >> If the cycle took only a few days I could finish this quickly and get it >> merged. > > Sounds like Intel is not officially supporting/funding your effort. I am also > helping out unfunded in my private time so cannot really promise to improve > things much in terms of promptness of reviews, or even promise to review in > the short term. > > In any case it sounds like the best plan is to send the fix which applies to > !PREEMPT_RT as standalone and see if anyone bites. Problem still be merging > such a large change so I expect maintainer acks will be needed in any case.
I've sent the other fixes instead, still missing 2 r-b's: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/174789/ I'll send 7/7 separately, and see what happens. If nothing else, it'll be on the mailing list to pick up. I believe that a concrete goal "Fix this specific code to work with PREEMPT_RT, it's the only thing holding us back", will eventually add motivation to merge the specific fixes, or develop another solution that will be accepted.
