linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] clocksource: Use cpumask_first_but() in clocksource_verify_choose

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5e8e0f17-9a4c-41d0-854f-e73a6f5866b7@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:38:16 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
 I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@...il.com>
Cc: linux@...musvillemoes.dk, jstultz@...gle.com, 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 6/13/25 04:48, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Yury!
> 
> On Fri, Jun 13 2025 at 01:02, Yury Norov wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> There is absolutely no justification for accusing Hsin of fraud or other
> nasty intentions.
> 
> It's sufficient to point him to your series and tell him that it's
> already been dealt with.

Thank you Thomas.

I Hsin is enrolled in kernel mentorship program and is new to the
kernel community. Pleas give them the benefit of the doubt. It can
be overwhelming when you just start sending patches. It can be
difficult to figure out if there is duplicate work happening.

Duplicate patches happen during kernel workflow. Most of us have done
that at least once.

thanks,
-- Shuah