Thanks for the review. I have prepared a four-patch v8 based on net-next commit 05b5019b01fb, with the following dispositions.
On Wed, 14 Oct 2026 08:15:54 +0000, [email protected] wrote: > Would it make sense to send a self-contained fix for these, with a Fixes: > tag, to net separately? Agreed that these changes also fix existing behavior; they are not merely cosmetic preparation. The v8 messages describe that behavior explicitly. This revision retains the four-patch feature lineage and does not label a whole feature-preparation patch as a safe standalone stable backport. A minimal net/stable series needs separate extraction, a verified Fixes origin and validation on its target baseline. That separate backport work is deferred, not rejected, and no claim is made that older kernels are fixed. > Could this commit avoid the channel-wide latch so that every commit in the > series is bisect-safe? Fixed in the v8 intermediate patch itself. Patch 2 no longer introduces a permanent channel-wide timeout latch; it preserves the baseline post-timeout admission policy while fixing caller storage withdrawal and completion-state locking. Patch 3 then introduces response ownership, quarantine, bounded admission and recovery signaling together. Thus patch 2 does not newly suppress all later teardown commands. This does not claim to repair the baseline generic policy that may free a data-queue DMA allocation after a failed control command. Regards, Wei
