On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 12:19:02PM +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote: > On 6/9/23 11:20, Greg KH wrote: > > > So far I have seen more and more false-positives from this "tool" of > > your group that I am very inclined to just tell all kernel maintainers > > to ignore them for a very long time as you are not following the > > documented rules for such patches as outlined in > > Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst > > > > Please read that and fix your tool, and your submission process, I've > > said this many times already. > > There might be a lot of definitions of what "research" actually is. > I realize that the maintainers may be very busy, but is it completely > illegal to sent a patch just to raise the flag and ask to share an > expertise? Note this was not a private e-mail, and it looks a bit > strange to treat it just like an attempt to waste your personal time. As a maintainer, you are asking for others to check your work. If you are sending stuff that is incorrect, yes, that is wasting their time. > And don't you think that such a policy definitely cuts off the > beginners and makes the community less friendly? Again, you are asking me to verify that your random tool is somehow actually sending out correct messages by asking me to review a patch for it? It's your responsibility to verify that your tool works properly, as you are in control of it, so yes, you MUST follow those research guidelines as that is EXACTLY what they were written for due to problems exactly like this. I have pointed out how broken this "tool" is numerous times in the past, this should not come as a surprise to you at all. greg k-h
