Re: [PATCH] Revert "x86/tsc: Consolidate init code"

["Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 07:02:43PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 06:23:49PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > 1) My workflow makes things tagged as BUG and REGRESSION urgent
> > >    automatically while [PATCH] just is queued to the normal pile of
> > >    backlog, i.e. at the end. It just sprang into my eyes by chance, but in
> > >    general you might just get the contrary of what you are looking for.
> > 
> > Ah. Might be nice to document that somewhere. I might have to type up
> > that git-regression tool for myself, because I'm lazy.
> 
> Well, it's probably different between maintainers, but it's common practice
> to have '[REGRESION] sub/sys got fubarred' in the subject.
> 
> > > 2) A proper bug report with proper information (it's documented what should
> > >    be provided), is way more worth than a patch with a mostly useless
> > >    change log, which forces me to ask for the proper information instead of
> > >    having it right away.
> > 
> > I do agree that not having to ask for more information would be nice,
> > but hard to generalize because every subsystem needs different things.
> > 
> > In this case you asked for the dmesg, which isn't even mentioned in
> > Documentation/admin-guide/reporting-bugs.rst as far as I can see.
> > So I'm not quite sure which documentation you're referring to here.
> 
> I didn't look, but I expected dmesg to be part of it and a lot of people
> provide it as well as the start point of their bisection. Again, I had to
> do a shot into the dark and ask you whether it's fixed in -rc3. bisect
> start would have told me.
> 
> So again. That revert patch habit does not make my life easier at all.

OK. I'll keep that in mind and try to stick REGRESSION format in the
future.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel