From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752872AbdBGGTM (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2017 01:19:12 -0500 Received: from mailout1.hostsharing.net ([83.223.95.204]:39939 "EHLO mailout1.hostsharing.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751921AbdBGGTL (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2017 01:19:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 07:21:01 +0100 From: Lukas Wunner To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Yinghai Lu , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Mika Westerberg , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI: pciehp: Don't enable PME on runtime suspend Message-ID: <20170207062101.GB791@wunner.de> References: <20170206175405.GA15565@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20170206212041.GC679@wunner.de> <20170206221502.GA27899@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170206221502.GA27899@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > 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. Lukas