Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <168166781352.1843526.278570500979918184@leemhuis.info>
 <CAHk-=wjQaxmXTR68VnEJvLgB=H2agMTrrF4EXkXT4Hbdf2ZuMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0j_MwW6JaqTRNhmz=LcW8==GZ0X-=W0+z0tOsGQyDd0Dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <b51f571a-d6b2-1908-d94a-bc0b2a751905@leemhuis.info> <CAJZ5v0j+VieZvQUXtyEJg47oggji2zgcJ6W9Mnge9Xz867QTJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgD98pmSK3ZyHk_d9kZ2bhgN6DuNZMAJaV0WTtbkf=RDw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgD98pmSK3ZyHk_d9kZ2bhgN6DuNZMAJaV0WTtbkf=RDw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:24:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jVoUQAuW6GAE1tkW616F9x_0SK21BvtcqGzhLjVx02cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: the wake-on-lan regression from 6.2 (was: Re: Linux regressions
 report for mainline [2023-04-16])
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 10:45 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:22 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > It will get fixed, most likely by reverting the offending commit and
> > most likely during the 6.4 merge window.
>
> No.
>
> It's now reverted in my tree.

Thanks for taking care of this and sorry for the trouble.

I was traveling Fri - Sun and I wouldn't have been able to push the
revert myself before today.

> We're not doing *another* release with this known-broken garbage. It's
> been pending for much too long already.
>
> Known-broken commits either
>
>  (a) get a timely fix that doesn't have other questions
>
> or
>
>  (b) get reverted
>
> Not this kind of "this is broken, has been known to be broken for a
> long time, people have bisected it, and we're just sitting here
> wondering what to do".
>
> > Note that ACPICA is involved, so the analogous revert needs to be
> > submitted there and I'm traveling right now.
>
> No, we're not waiting for "it's broken in the ACPICA tree" and using
> that as an excuse to have a broken kernel.
>
> If the ACPICA tree can't get their act together in two months, that's
> their problem. It does not mean that users should need to suffer known
> issues.

OK, in the future I'll deal with problematic commits coming from
ACPICA more timely without waiting for upstream.