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

[Thomas Gleixner]

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.

Thanks,

	tglx