Message-ID: <385a3bc1-2c0a-4a11-a802-ad02abafef1e@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:34:35 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@...il.com>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: linux@...musvillemoes.dk, jstultz@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
 sboyd@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eleanor15x@...il.com,
 visitorckw@...il.com, jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw,
 linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] clocksource: Use cpumask_first_but() in
 clocksource_verify_choose_cpus()

On 6/12/25 23:22, I Hsin Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:02:38AM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
>> I Hsin,
>>
>> This exact change has already been submitted by me and is under review.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250604232550.40491-2-yury.norov@gmail.com/
>>
>> I don't understand why are you undercutting my work, and moreover do it
>> for the second time.
>>
>> For the first time you submitted something that duplicates my another
>> patch from the exact same series. John Stultz has pointed that, so you're
>> surely aware.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CANDhNCoJ_MmpEfyuL+JWav+NUfQDH3dm196JSE-Mv3QrPUzi3g@mail.gmail.com/
>>
>> Kernel development process implies that one makes sure that his work
>> is unique and doesn't break someone else's development, at one's best
>> knowledge.
>>
>> What you're doing not only breaks this rule. You're in fact trying to
>> get credit for the work that is done by someone else. This is the
>> definition of fraud.
>>
>> I cannot make sure that any other patches from you are unique and
>> written by actually you. Therefore, I will not take your work anymore.
>>
>> I encourage everyone else to be careful working with I Hsing Cheng
>> and check his patches for uniqueness, at minimum.
>>
>> NAKed-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yury
>>
> 
> Hello Yury,
> 
> Sorry to make troubles, I didn't mean to do this, I wasn't aware that
> you've send the same work and nor do I mean to interrupt your work. I
> didn't have the habit to check others patches regularly, I'm sorry for
> that.
> 
> I just saw Kuan-Wei's patch from months ago and I asked him whether I
> can continue that work, and he agrees, so I try to do something from
> there.
> 
> Again sorry for causing troubles, I'll make sure to look for others
> patches first before submitting them.
> 
> Sincerely sorry for this.
> 
> Thanks,
> I Hsin Cheng
> 
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 11:34:47AM +0800, I Hsin Cheng wrote:
>>> Utilize cpumask_first_but() helper instead of first using
>>> cpumask_first() and then cpumask_next(). The logic is the same here,
>>> using the new helper will make it more conscious.
>>>
>>> Use bloat-o-meter to check the impact on code size, the result is the
>>> same, does not have positive impact nor negative impact.
>>>
>>> $ ./scripts/bloat-o-meter vmlinux_old vmlinux_new
>>> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/0 up/down: 0/0 (0)
>>> Function                                     old     new   delta
>>> Total: Before=22590709, After=22590709, chg +0.00%
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> Generally speaking, I think this is just a small tweak on the code,
>>> making it more readable. However, no benefit in code size or performance
>>> as the implementation behind the helper is in fact the same as the one
>>> used here.
>>>
>>> Maybe more tests should be done to ensure the change is solid, I hope to
>>> seek some suggestions from everyone who has any ideas, or this is enough
>>> then it's good.
>>>

Thank you for explaining what transpired and clearing the misunderstanding.
It can be difficult to figure if there is a duplicate patch unless you
are closely watching the mailing lists - it is very hard to keep up.

Don't be discouraged with this experience. Continue to contribute.

thanks,
-- Shuah

Powered by blists - more mailing lists