On 14.04.21 15:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:22 PM w4v3 <vv4v3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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 BTW: thx! >>> 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. Rafael, thx for clarifying. And what you wrote is likely the case for subsystems as well, so I submitted a patch to mentioned that in reporting-issues.rst: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/dd13f10c30e79e550215e53a8103406daec4e593.1618482489.git.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Thx everyone! Ciao, Thorsten
