linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: pciehp: Don't enable PME on runtime suspend

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:57:36 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: pciehp: Don't enable PME on runtime suspend

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 07:21:01AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 04:15:02PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:20:41PM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 11:54:05AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > > > What is the hotplug event that causes generation of this wakeup event?
> > > 
> > > If you had read all e-mails in this thread or looked at the bugzilla
> > > entry I've created, you wouldn't have to ask this question.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, I don't necessarily have time to sort through all the
> > emails.  My idea is that the changelog should be a self-contained
> > justification for the patch.  The bugzilla is for supporting details
> > and future archaeologists.
> > 
> > > I think it's disappointing that you're asking me to jump through
> > > various hoops like creating a bugzilla entry, as well as threatening
> > > to revert my patch, but are unwilling to even look at the bugzilla
> > > entry or read the entire thread.  It is equally disappointing that
> > > the reporter of the regression was unwilling or unable to provide
> > > dmesg output for both machines so that we've got no real idea what
> > > we're dealing with.
> > 
> > I beg your pardon?  I don't think it's fair to malign Yinghai.  He's
> > tested at least two machines and at least two patches, and it's only
> > been two working days since he reported the problem.
> 
> I think the commercialization of Linux kernel development has put this
> open source project in a sorry state if an unpaid volunteer is told off
> because he expresses disappointment that a paid contributor is asking
> him to debug an issue on secret hardware using secret patches and not
> providing secret dmesg output.

Just let me be clear that I greatly appreciate all problem reports.
There's very little that I can actually test myself, so problem
reports from others are absolutely essential.

Often we don't get all the information we'd like, but I treat all
reports seriously.  For every report we get, there may be dozens or
hundreds of people who hit the same problem but do not have the time
or expertise to report it.

> > If you think a bugzilla is onerous
> 
> Hold on.  I didn't say a bugzilla is onerous, I said I'm disappointed
> that you're asking me to create one and then don't look at it.

I looked at it, and it had a few details, but no analysis of the
situation.  Ideally, I'm looking for a précis of the situation in
the changelog, with complete analysis and supporting details in the
bugzilla.

Bjorn