Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 14 Jun 2023 19:12:58 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     hexingwei001@208suo.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: page_io: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of
 'unsigned'
Message-ID: <ZIoDKqBt2uNSbblB@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230614071804.13110-1-panzhiai@cdjrlc.com>
 <1e132a6416d673e285af610ff185fa5f@208suo.com>
 <20230614110923.b5ac015ac6e9a2d97f3b40c3@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230614110923.b5ac015ac6e9a2d97f3b40c3@linux-foundation.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 11:09:23AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 15:23:44 +0800 hexingwei001@208suo.com wrote:

All the patches from 208suo.com should be discarded.  From conversations
I've seen elsewhere, they aren't compile tested, they're whitespace
damaged and often they're just wrong.

<x> has anyone seen 208suo.com patches?
<x> so far all I've seen are either utterly wrong or won't even compile
<x> and a bunch of different email addresses/names from that domain, but all the patches coming at around the same time? it's very weird
<x> and also all the same kind of patches
<x> "remove unneeded variable" - per coccicheck, which is just not smart enough about the macro constructions
<x> and of course 20 minutes after I ask them to stop, they send another broken patch