[jacquesm]

But: it wasn't a working patch, it was mailed to a security mailing list alerting, and it wasn't properly signed off as required for inclusion. Those things alone make the expectations for credit strange. LKML has its own set of very specific rules around this stuff.

[phendrenad2]

Of course, this all makes perfect sense if you live inside the LKML bureaucracy. From the outside it just seems bonkers. This is why it's important to reconsider policies that don't make sense.

[jacquesm]

Agreed, but OP made himself part of that bureaucracy entirely voluntarily. It's as if I show up to a casino and start playing without familiarizing myself with the rules and the environment first. Note that the kernel maintainers are in general getting a lot of crap for doing a very large amount of work and that this sort of post that attacks a particular maintainer by name is really damaging, far more so than if the OP had never submitted their patch in the first place.

[phendrenad2]

Absolutely agree. But remember that this affects all of us, because "with many eyes all bugs are shallow" only works if lots of people show up and contribute.