[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgD98pmSK3ZyHk_d9kZ2bhgN6DuNZMAJaV0WTtbkf=RDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 13:45:18 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: the wake-on-lan regression from 6.2 (was: Re: Linux regressions
report for mainline [2023-04-16])
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:22 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> It will get fixed, most likely by reverting the offending commit and
> most likely during the 6.4 merge window.
No.
It's now reverted in my tree.
We're not doing *another* release with this known-broken garbage. It's
been pending for much too long already.
Known-broken commits either
(a) get a timely fix that doesn't have other questions
or
(b) get reverted
Not this kind of "this is broken, has been known to be broken for a
long time, people have bisected it, and we're just sitting here
wondering what to do".
> Note that ACPICA is involved, so the analogous revert needs to be
> submitted there and I'm traveling right now.
No, we're not waiting for "it's broken in the ACPICA tree" and using
that as an excuse to have a broken kernel.
If the ACPICA tree can't get their act together in two months, that's
their problem. It does not mean that users should need to suffer known
issues.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists