From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A357A2F9B for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:00:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=AlqzyhDQ4JKWXNRvnxM1Dw0PsLVo8M9cSDkMlNnueME=; b=j4xBJBbHZaneeH4VtzQHX3OkVN 8RwlTnW1wn40KS8wSYwr2wz+r1/DmkxG1LSCncfasBDEyBvRBiQn/ftSpfSzRxj6T7GrcpkQF6Vqe yNmk9mZfDq3FyQRBZgkQGkAbX++inRY56KZViHRnNcDotyQW6BTN/KPC21ShpGffrOqMxiD/B7n3m cYjzBPh25rApxe57EtHqnkZZoqubyvOiLVYRjLyOcB23Tq72PjCrBOeQ/bRggOXp22UVvguUcihst KV/eSG9Gu2z2wLh4F7kurXHpVc5NHQgsWkfHkDHPBG7k1CODpU6s43jlMyIF1ttOOeDIjg8OZcTJx VqpkxEog==; Received: from hch by casper.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1lZSNQ-00HVOH-OZ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:00:01 +0000 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:59:48 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Roland Dreier Cc: Steven Rostedt , James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches Message-ID: <20210422055948.GA4171859@infradead.org> References: <20210421152209.68075314@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org. See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 12:32:33PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote: > I also think there does need to be a strong sanction against this UMN > research group, since we need to make sure there are strong incentives > against wasting everyone's time with stunts like this. Hopefully on > the academic side it can be made clear that this is not ethical > research - for example, why did IEEE think this was an acceptable > paper? I wholeheartedly disagree. Demonstrating this kind of "attack" has been long overdue, and kicked off a very important discussion. Even more so as in this area malice is almost indistinguishable from normal incompetence. I think they deserve a medel of honor.