Did you read the report? (<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202105051005.49BFABCE@keescook/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202105051005.49BFABCE@keescook/>) Allow me

Did you read the report? (<https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202105051005.49BFABCE@keescook/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202105051005.49BFABCE@keescook/>) Allow me to quote from it: Patch 3 First email: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:44:57 -0500 (Fri, 21 Aug 2020 03:44:57 UTC) First reply: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 11:14:49 +0300 (Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:14:49 UTC) https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200821034458.22472-1-acostag.ubuntu@gmail.com This patch was quickly recognized by a reviewer to be incorrect, and the reviewer offered up possible changes that the submitter could make in order to turn it into a correct change. These suggestions were ignored by the submitter and no further changes were submitted in this area. The maintainer was attempting to mentor an obviously junior contributor, taking time to teach the developer what the proper thing to do here would be, and what is needed in order to have them create a contribution that would be acceptable. The contributor knew that the patch was bad, showing that the researchers were willing to waste the resource that is in shortest supply in our community: the time of reviewers and maintainers. Having this waste of an "effort of someone trying to teach another" be created by an educational institution was especially hurtful to the community and caused many of the bad feelings on the community's side, further amplified by not having any idea which patches out of the hundreds sent by UMN or from new contributors using gmail accounts might be intentionally bad. […] Summary of "Hypocrite Commits" patch attempts All patch submissions that were invalid were caught, or ignored, by the Linux kernel developers and maintainers. Our patch-review processes worked as intended when confronted with these malicious patches. As you can see, the time that was wasted was especially valuable, and the research did not demonstrate any such thing.