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
