On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:20:46 +0300 Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There really is no alternative for maintainers other than to always be > > sceptical of patches submitted by people who are not known and trusted > > members of the community, and to scrutinise those patches with more > > care. > There's only a couple of contributors to my code that I will take without looking deeply at what it does. And those are well respected developers that many other people know. > Right, my guess is that many maintainers failed in the trap when they > saw respectful address @umn.edu together with commit message saying > about "new static analyzer tool". > > The mental bias here is to say that "oh, another academic group tries > to reinvent the wheel, looks ok". I'm skeptical of all static analyzers, as I've seen too many good ones still produce crappy fixes. I look even more carefully if I see that it was a tool that discovered the bug and not a human. The one patch from Greg's reverts that affects my code was actually a legitimate fix, and looking back at the thread of the submission, I even asked if it was found via inspection or a tool. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190419223718.17fa8246@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ -- Steve
