Re: the wake-on-lan regression from 6.2 (was: Re: Linux regressions report for mainline [2023-04-16])

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 10:45 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:22 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.