On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:22 PM w4v3 [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Thorsten,

Thanks for the quick and illuminating response :)

quoted

Links to your bug report and the thread on the mailing list would have
helped here to understand better what's going on, but whatever, they are
not that important.

Here you go: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212643
https://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=161824910030600&w=2

quoted

But it should, otherwise the subsystem should remove the line starting
with B: ("bugs:" in the webview).

Rafael might be able to clarify things.

quoted

But afais it's appropriate there is a B: line: just a few weeks ago I
took a quick look at bugzilla and ACPI bugs in particular, and back then
most of the bug reports there got handled by the maintainers. That's why
I assume you were just unlucky and your report fall through the cracks
(but obviously I might be wrong here). And maybe your report even did
help: the developer that fixed the issue might have seen both the bug
entry and the mailed report, but simply forget to close the former.

Good to know. It does seem like many recent ACPI bug reports on bugzilla
have been processed by maintainers. Maybe it is the ACPI-subcomponent I
chose for the bug: in Config-Tables, only two other bugs were submitted
and they did not attract comments. Anyways, I understand now that it's
not an issue with the document so thanks for forwarding it to Rafael.

As a rule, ACPI bugs submitted through the BZ are processed by the
ACPI team (not necessarily by me in person, though), but the response
time may vary, so it's better to report urgent issues by sending
e-mail to linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org.

Definitely issues where table dumps or similar are requested are best
handled in the BZ, so reporters can be asked to create a BZ entry for
a bug reported by e-mail anyway.

If you are interested in the history (ie. what issues were reported in
the past), you need to look at both the BZ and the ml record.

HTH