On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:22 PM w4v3 <vv4v3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Thorsten, > > Thanks for the quick and illuminating response :) > > > Links to your bug report and the thread on the mailing list would have > > helped here to understand better what's going on, but whatever, they are > > not that important. > > Here you go: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212643 > https://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=161824910030600&w=2 > > > But it should, otherwise the subsystem should remove the line starting > > with B: ("bugs:" in the webview). > > > > Rafael might be able to clarify things. > > > But afais it's appropriate there is a B: line: just a few weeks ago I > > took a quick look at bugzilla and ACPI bugs in particular, and back then > > most of the bug reports there got handled by the maintainers. That's why > > I assume you were just unlucky and your report fall through the cracks > > (but obviously I might be wrong here). And maybe your report even did > > help: the developer that fixed the issue might have seen both the bug > > entry and the mailed report, but simply forget to close the former. > > Good to know. It does seem like many recent ACPI bug reports on bugzilla > have been processed by maintainers. Maybe it is the ACPI-subcomponent I > chose for the bug: in Config-Tables, only two other bugs were submitted > and they did not attract comments. Anyways, I understand now that it's > not an issue with the document so thanks for forwarding it to Rafael. As a rule, ACPI bugs submitted through the BZ are processed by the ACPI team (not necessarily by me in person, though), but the response time may vary, so it's better to report urgent issues by sending e-mail to linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Definitely issues where table dumps or similar are requested are best handled in the BZ, so reporters can be asked to create a BZ entry for a bug reported by e-mail anyway. If you are interested in the history (ie. what issues were reported in the past), you need to look at both the BZ and the ml record. HTH
