[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <435wi7dfddjqhn5yxuw34tww2gyr4x2oeh3s25htuwl7cwggza@zuyzyrha7qk6>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 14:58:37 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Kun Hu <huk23@...udan.edu.cn>, jlayton@...hat.com, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
david@...morbit.com, bfields@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
christian.brauner@...ntu.com, hch@....de, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, brauner@...nel.org, linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org,
syzkaller@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: Bug: INFO_ task hung in lock_two_nondirectories
On Tue 14-01-25 10:07:03, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> I also don't fully understand the value of "we also reported X bugs to
> the upstream kernel" for research papers. There is little correlation
> with the quality/novelty of research.
Since I was working in academia in the (distant) pass, let me share my
(slightly educated) guess: In the paper you're supposed to show practical
applicability and relevance of the improvement you propose. It doesn't have
to be really useful but it has to sound useful enough to convince paper
reviewer. I suppose in the fuzzer area this "practical applicability" part
boils down how many bugs were reported...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists