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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20170209043254.GB1304@wunner.de>
Date:   Thu, 9 Feb 2017 05:32:54 +0100
From:   Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
To:     Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
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 Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:57:36AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 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.
> > > 
[...]
> > > 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.

It's irrelevant whether the bugzilla contains an analysis or not.

You were asking what type of event caused the wakeup.  The information
was in the bugzilla.  So you either didn't look at the bugzilla or
didn't look hard enough.

Please tell me why in the future I should comply with your requests to
create a bugzilla if you don't look at it and the bug reporter doesn't
bother attaching any further information.  It would also have been
possible for you to glean the information you were asking for from the
reporter's e-mails but you didn't read those either.  And you're paid
to do this, I'm not.  If you look at the timestamps of my e-mails you
may notice that they're either early in the morning, late at night or
on weekends.  Guess what, I'm doing this in my spare time, in addition
to my day job.  Try to put yourself in my shoes for a moment, this
feels like a waste of my time and like subsystem maintainership is
being turned into a Kafkaesque bureaucracy.

Lukas