Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-24879-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240112125801.2650-1-2045gemini@gmail.com> <2024011212-disbelief-respect-5230@gregkh>
In-Reply-To: <2024011212-disbelief-respect-5230@gregkh>
From: Gui-Dong Han <2045gemini@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:59:11 +0800
Message-ID: <CAOPYjvZYdPSiZ+jX4vhwPQ3AKRvW15XT1znAa8vd9a6DVoor5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: fix atomicity violation in n_tty_read
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: jirislaby@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, baijiaju1990@outlook.com, 
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi

I apologize for any confusion caused by my reference to Linux 5.17 in
the patch description. I'm currently working on a project involving
kernel static analysis to identify atomicity violations, and part of
this work involves comparison with a previous study that supports up
to Linux 5.17. Therefore, I initially ran my tool on 5.17 to filter
potential bugs that are still unaddressed in the upstream. I want to
clarify that the patch was developed and tested on linux-next. I
realize now that this may have led to misunderstandings, and I will
ensure clearer communication in future submissions.
My experience with Linux kernel contributions is still growing, and I
acknowledge that my recent submission might have been hasty and lacked
thorough consideration, especially regarding the critical nature of
n_tty_read and the potential impacts of the patch, like performance
concerns. I will take more care in future assessments before
submitting patches and continue to familiarize myself with the rules
and practices of the Linux kernel community.

Thanks,
Han