Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] clocksource: Use cpumask_first_but() in clocksource_verify_choose_cpus()

[Shuah Khan]

On 6/12/25 23:22, I Hsin Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:02:38AM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
> > I Hsin,
> >
> > This exact change has already been submitted by me and is under review.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250604232550.40491-2-yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > I don't understand why are you undercutting my work, and moreover do it
> > for the second time.
> >
> > For the first time you submitted something that duplicates my another
> > patch from the exact same series. John Stultz has pointed that, so you're
> > surely aware.
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CANDhNCoJ_MmpEfyuL+JWav+NUfQDH3dm196JSE-Mv3QrPUzi3g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Kernel development process implies that one makes sure that his work
> > is unique and doesn't break someone else's development, at one's best
> > knowledge.
> >
> > What you're doing not only breaks this rule. You're in fact trying to
> > get credit for the work that is done by someone else. This is the
> > definition of fraud.
> >
> > I cannot make sure that any other patches from you are unique and
> > written by actually you. Therefore, I will not take your work anymore.
> >
> > I encourage everyone else to be careful working with I Hsing Cheng
> > and check his patches for uniqueness, at minimum.
> >
> > NAKed-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yury
>
> Hello Yury,
>
> Sorry to make troubles, I didn't mean to do this, I wasn't aware that
> you've send the same work and nor do I mean to interrupt your work. I
> didn't have the habit to check others patches regularly, I'm sorry for
> that.
>
> I just saw Kuan-Wei's patch from months ago and I asked him whether I
> can continue that work, and he agrees, so I try to do something from
> there.
>
> Again sorry for causing troubles, I'll make sure to look for others
> patches first before submitting them.
>
> Sincerely sorry for this.
>
> Thanks,
> I Hsin Cheng
>
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 11:34:47AM +0800, I Hsin Cheng wrote:
> > > Utilize cpumask_first_but() helper instead of first using
> > > cpumask_first() and then cpumask_next(). The logic is the same here,
> > > using the new helper will make it more conscious.
> > >
> > > Use bloat-o-meter to check the impact on code size, the result is the
> > > same, does not have positive impact nor negative impact.
> > >
> > > $ ./scripts/bloat-o-meter vmlinux_old vmlinux_new
> > > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/0 up/down: 0/0 (0)
> > > Function                                     old     new   delta
> > > Total: Before=22590709, After=22590709, chg +0.00%
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Generally speaking, I think this is just a small tweak on the code,
> > > making it more readable. However, no benefit in code size or performance
> > > as the implementation behind the helper is in fact the same as the one
> > > used here.
> > >
> > > Maybe more tests should be done to ensure the change is solid, I hope to
> > > seek some suggestions from everyone who has any ideas, or this is enough
> > > then it's good.

Thank you for explaining what transpired and clearing the misunderstanding.
It can be difficult to figure if there is a duplicate patch unless you
are closely watching the mailing lists - it is very hard to keep up.

Don't be discouraged with this experience. Continue to contribute.

thanks,
-- Shuah