4 ms·

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/YH5%2Fi7OvsjSmqADv@kroah.c... And the resulting conversations

• shadowgovt 5y ago
  That's the problem with bad-faith action by an institution... It casts a shadow on the actions of all the other agents of the institution. Greg's concerns proved to be overblown, but at the time they were raised he had reason to believe them valid.
• HarryHirsch 5y ago
  The "hypocrite commit" project was using the kernel developers to further Kangjie Lu's career goals. Aditya was using the kernel developers' time to further his research project, his static analyzer. There's no material difference.
• gnud 5y ago
  That's easy to say now. At the time, UMC had not "debriefed" the kernel maintainers they lied to in the "hypocrite commits". And then Pakki didn't mention that these new patches were generated by a tool, and submitted a bunch of "nonsense" patches with no explanation. What reason did GKH have to trust anyone associated with the "hypocrite commits" at that point? (ps. don't think you deserve all the downvotes here...)
  • Foxboron 5y ago
    I said the same thing then. The pre-print was public at that point and I had been following it since December, sharing thesis adviser doesn't make you associated with research conducted months prior. Yes, they are bad patches and the research is also questionable. But this is not bad faith nor malicious.