Re: [PATCH] HID: logitech-hidpp: Handle timeout differently from busy

[Benjamin Tissoires]

On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 8:18 PM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06.06.23 15:27, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2023, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> >
> >>>>> If an attempt at contacting a receiver or a device fails because the
> >>>>> receiver or device never responds, don't restart the communication, only
> >>>>> restart it if the receiver or device answers that it's busy, as originally
> >>>>> intended.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This was the behaviour on communication timeout before commit 586e8fede795
> >>>>> ("HID: logitech-hidpp: Retry commands when device is busy").
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This fixes some overly long waits in a critical path on boot, when
> >>>>> checking whether the device is connected by getting its HID++ version.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Bastien Nocera <hadess@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Suggested-by: Mark Lord <mlord@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> Fixes: 586e8fede795 ("HID: logitech-hidpp: Retry commands when device is busy")
> >>>>> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217412
> >>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>> I have applied this even before getting confirmation from the reporters in
> >>>> bugzilla, as it's the right thing to do anyway.
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately it doesn't seem to cure the reported issue (while reverting
> >>> 586e8fede79 does):
> >>
> >> BTW, remind me again: was fixing this by reverting 586e8fede79 for now a
> >> option? I guess it's not, but if I'm wrong I wonder if that might at
> >> this point be the best way forward.
> >
> > This should now all be fixed by
> >
> >     https://git.kernel.org/linus/7c28afd5512e371773dbb2bf95a31ed5625651d9
>
> Jiri, Benjamin, many many thx for working on this.
>
> Hmmm. No CC: <stable... tag.
>
> Should we ask Greg to pick this up for 6.3 now, or better wait a few
> days? He currently already has 6199d23c91ce ("HID: logitech-hidpp:
> Handle timeout differently from busy") in his queue for the next 6.3.y
> release.

Well, the Fixes: tag supposedly is enough to let the stable folks to
pick it up. But you are right, let's Cc Greg for a quicker inclusion
in the 6.3 tree.

Greg, would you mind adding the commit above (7c28afd5512e37) onto the
6.3 stable queue? Thanks!

Cheers,
Benjamin

>
> Ciao, Thorsten
>
> P.S.: If the answer is along the lines of "let's backport this quickly",
> please consider directly CCing Greg.
>