Patch "ice: fix retry for AQ command 0x06EE" has been added to the 5.15-stable tree
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 2026031705-nimbly-relatable-1e23@gregkh
Quoted 8 lines · On 2026-03-17 1:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
ice: fix retry for AQ command 0x06EEto the 5.15-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
Quoted 7 lines
The filename of the patch is:
ice-fix-retry-for-aq-command-0x06ee.patchand it can be found in the queue-5.15 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.
Hey stable maintainers!
This patch **depends heavily** on the change "ice: reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ" which failed to apply for 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable trees.
Until I can try to resolve the conflicts and resend, it might be necessary to pull this change from the 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable trees immediately as it will result in multiple WARN messages being printed into the dmesg upon issuing 'ethtool -m' on a interface under the 'ice' driver control.
What is the timeline is for resending a conflict free version of the "ice: reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ" patch for 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable? And ensuring that the "ice: reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ" commit lands in the tree before "ice: fix retry for AQ command 0x06EE"?
I don't know how to make that requirement / relation between commits known for stable. I didn't find anything in the docs and I assumed if the whole series doesn't get applied to a given tree (e.g. 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable as is the case here) then the rest also doesn't. If there's a way to hint at that for future submissions, please share the relevant doc / guideline. Sorry!
Best regards
Dawid
Quoted 10 lines · Dawid Osuchowski
Quoted 3 lines · On 2026-03-17 1:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.
Hey stable maintainers!
This patch **depends heavily** on the change "ice: reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ" which failed to apply for 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable trees.
Until I can try to resolve the conflicts and resend, it might be necessary to pull this change from the 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable trees immediately as it will result in multiple WARN messages being printed into the dmesg upon issuing 'ethtool -m' on a interface under the 'ice' driver control.
!!! FALSE ALARM - ABORT !!!
I'm sorry, a bit of a chaotic day here at work...
I was worried the lack of the "ice: reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ" patch will result in issues for users. It will not, as my colleague Jakub Staniszewski politely informed me that the 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable doesn't have the code from Michal Schmidt that we "reverted" using "ice: reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ". No warnings will be printed to dmesg and everything should work correctly...
Once again I am very sorry
-Dawid
Greg KH
maintainerQuoted 22 lines · Dawid Osuchowski
Quoted 11 lines · Dawid Osuchowski
Quoted 3 lines · On 2026-03-17 1:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.
Hey stable maintainers!
This patch **depends heavily** on the change "ice: reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ" which failed to apply for 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable trees.
Quoted 5 lines
Until I can try to resolve the conflicts and resend, it might be necessary to pull this change from the 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable trees immediately as it will result in multiple WARN messages being printed into the dmesg upon issuing 'ethtool -m' on a interface under the 'ice' driver control.
!!! FALSE ALARM - ABORT !!!
I'm sorry, a bit of a chaotic day here at work...
Quoted 8 lines
I was worried the lack of the "ice: reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ" patch will result in issues for users. It will not, as my colleague Jakub Staniszewski politely informed me that the 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable doesn't have the code from Michal Schmidt that we "reverted" using "ice:
reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ". No warnings will be printed to dmesg and everything should work correctly...Once again I am very sorry
No worries, I'd much rather people warn us and then say "nope, we were wrong" instead of not saying anything if they think there might be a problem. So all is good here, thanks!
greg k-h
Quoted 30 lines · Greg KH
Quoted 29 lines · Dawid Osuchowski
Quoted 11 lines · Dawid Osuchowski
Quoted 3 lines · On 2026-03-17 1:11 PM, [email protected] wrote:
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.
Hey stable maintainers!
This patch **depends heavily** on the change "ice: reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ" which failed to apply for 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable trees.
Quoted 5 lines
Until I can try to resolve the conflicts and resend, it might be necessary to pull this change from the 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable trees immediately as it will result in multiple WARN messages being printed into the dmesg upon issuing 'ethtool -m' on a interface under the 'ice' driver control.
!!! FALSE ALARM - ABORT !!!
I'm sorry, a bit of a chaotic day here at work...
I was worried the lack of the "ice: reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ" patch will result in issues for users. It will not, as my colleague Jakub Staniszewski politely informed me that the 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable doesn't have the code from Michal Schmidt that we "reverted" using "ice:
reintroduce retry mechanism for indirect AQ". No warnings will be printed to dmesg and everything should work correctly...
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Once again I am very sorry
No worries, I'd much rather people warn us and then say "nope, we were wrong" instead of not saying anything if they think there might be a problem. So all is good here, thanks!
greg k-h
Thanks for understanding Greg.
Let me double check if this will break or not finally. I went in very hot headed and I apologize about that. I'll cool off a bit and compile the 5.15-stable and 6.1-stable trees and test on real hardware if this can remain in the trees unchanged or if some modifications are necessary.
I'll also read up on the stable process more in-depth to see how long it takes from the patch queue / linux-stable-rc for a given tree to be actually part of the next 6.1.y/5.15.y release.
Best regards
-Dawid