From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94417C433FE for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 07:37:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229713AbiJBHhX (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Oct 2022 03:37:23 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39030 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229695AbiJBHhW (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Oct 2022 03:37:22 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C93EC4F676; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 00:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA460219DB; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 07:37:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1664696238; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FzR5x3JUkUKvwUT994EkOblMSwWP5Qi2AF9tnTFvWkI=; b=fnQaZ5DQyouylrjN7+ZTlPuyoA3v5tUv9BxYSP6LczMR4/5GTOD8Nyx++6GkMcYBb6Dffg xu+a142U4wYtVKugsoEKqixGGaXZkBzDlEkBFFm6Ke0ZD2tsUwIYh5UO9ANyadYDptkPyv H8H2HgC4cpI7KEJA6Y9vSJlA/wb0gws= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1664696238; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FzR5x3JUkUKvwUT994EkOblMSwWP5Qi2AF9tnTFvWkI=; b=Loxg+Ly+4sdHcII0fcOctLmESYltf7MiXsLFHWABKtoz/xGWt+JqY8jaQqpKicOyVQB++0 7wkzozkIrhaT2BDQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E9A213A5D; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 07:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id wyf0Ja4/OWP/KwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Sun, 02 Oct 2022 07:37:18 +0000 Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 09:37:18 +0200 Message-ID: <87pmfavfpt.wl-tiwai@suse.de> From: Takashi Iwai To: "Artem S. Tashkinov" Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis , Konstantin Ryabitsev , workflows@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , "regressions@lists.linux.dev" , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: Planned changes for bugzilla.kernel.org to reduce the "Bugzilla blues" In-Reply-To: <9a2fdff8-d0d3-ebba-d344-3c1016237fe5@gmx.com> References: <05d149a0-e3de-8b09-ecc0-3ea73e080be3@leemhuis.info> <9a2fdff8-d0d3-ebba-d344-3c1016237fe5@gmx.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/27.2 Mule/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 01 Oct 2022 12:30:22 +0200, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > > Here are two other issues which absolutely suck in terms of dealing with > the kernel. > > - 1 - > > I have a 20+ years experience in IT and some kernel issues are just > baffling in terms of trying to understand what to do about them. > > Here's an example: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216274 > > What should I do about that? Who's responsible for this? Who should I CC? > > And this is an issue which is easy to describe and identify. IMO, this indicates one of the big problems of bugzilla -- or a bug tracker in general -- with the complete lack of screening. An initial bug report is sent only to the bug assignees of the given component, and those are mostly destined to persons (usually maintainers), not to a public ML or group. That doesn't work nor scale for lots of bug reports. We need screening at the first place, before maintainers try to take a deeper look. One may change the default target of the bugzilla assignee to a ML, too. However, this leads to sending lots of noises from unqualified bug reports straightly to ML, which shall upset developers, so it's no better choice. And, screening is a tiresome task; you'd have to deal sometimes with people have no clue and no etiquette. I understand many companies trying to deploy AI for that place... > - 2 - > > Here's another one which is outright puzzling: > > You run: dmesg -t --level=emerg,crit,err > > And you see some non-descript errors of some kernel subsystems seemingly > failing or being unhappy about your hardware. Errors are as cryptic as > humanly possible, you don't even know what part of kernel has produced them. > > OK, as a "power" user I download the kernel source, run `grep -R message > /tmp/linux-5.19` and there are _multiple_ different modules and places > which contain this message. > > I'm lost. Send this to LKML? Did that in the long past, no one cared, I > stopped. > > Here's what I'm getting with Linux 5.19.12: > > platform wdat_wdt: failed to claim resource 5: [mem > 0x00000000-0xffffffff7fffffff] > ACPI: watchdog: Device creation failed: -16 > ACPI BIOS Error (bug): Could not resolve symbol > [\_SB.PCI0.XHC.RHUB.TPLD], AE_NOT_FOUND (20220331/psargs-330) > ACPI Error: Aborting method \_SB.UBTC.CR01._PLD due to previous error > (AE_NOT_FOUND) (20220331/psparse-529) > platform MSFT0101:00: failed to claim resource 1: [mem > 0xfed40000-0xfed40fff] > acpi MSFT0101:00: platform device creation failed: -16 > lis3lv02d: unknown sensor type 0x0 > > Are they serious? Should they be reported or not? Is my laptop properly > working? I have no clue at all. That's a dilemma. The kernel can't know whether it's "properly" working, either -- that is, whether the lack of some functions matters for you or not. In your case above, it's about a watchdog, something related with USB, TPM, and acceleration sensor, all of which likely come from a buggy BIOS. Would you mind if those features are missing? Or even whether your device has a correct hardware implementation? Kernel doesn't know, hence it complains as an error. In many drivers, there are mechanisms to shut off superfluous error messages for known devices. So it's case-by-case solutions. Or you can completely hide those errors at boot by a boot option (e.g. loglevel=2). Takashi