Without more context I bet this thread is going to go off-topic.
- trivial patches are ok, if you are just doing it for practice. Like a student.
- trivial patches are not ok, if you are doing a lot of them and only for the purpose to get a higher contribution ranking (like commits per company)
Doesn't Kernel use sponsors approach, like Debian used to for packages? You can push anything, but you find yourself a competent maintainer who filters your work. Like puts your trivial commits in bulk ;)
See:
> > My contributions to the kernel in the past have mainly been on optimizing the performance of the ARM64 SMMU driver, > > including the iova optimization, strict mode optimization, and the lazy mode optimization. Also working on the > > development of some ARM SoC drivers.
> You indeed have done solid contribution to the kernel in the past, thus > better could have been done.
Also:
> Even without checking the git log, I can easily think of some big > contributions from your employer, like EROFS and F2FS. > Thus I don't have any doubt about that.
NSA has implemented backdoors in software through bug fixes that appear to be just benign typo or spelling fixes but actually allow an exploit in combination with some other exploit etc. To any one accepting the patch it just looks like a typo fix maybe a little odd but nothing dangerous.
Huawei have the people with the skills to do really impressive work but they spend that time and resources fixing typos, this is a little odd.
>NSA has implemented backdoors in software through bug fixes that appear to be just benign typo or spelling fixes but actually allow an exploit in combination with some other exploit etc.
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/nsa-exploited-heartbleed-two-y...
> If you're hired to do this stuff, you're on your own, you better know what you're doing.
Huawei pays professional developers to contribute to the kernel. Of course they should be held to a higher standard. They should be working on something substantial, not fixing minor problems. Surely there are far more important things to work on. Failing to prioritize important issues coupled with incentives for kernel contribution means they are putting in minimum effort for maximum personal gain at the expense of maintainers.
To use an analogy, imagine you wrote a proposal at work and asked for feedback from your boss. Instead of a single substantive response, they send back a few dozen individual emails, each one a comment on word choice, or font size, or a suggestion for a paragraph break. Even if each one of them might have some minor merit, it was done in the most time wasting way possible, maybe because their boss measures their work output by how many emails they send.
Huawei isn't the kernel boss, but they are essentially submitting feedback. Qu is saying that, for a company the size of Huawei, one that is massively reliant on Linux and has developers' time dedicated to it, he expects them to make their own submissions in a less time wasting fashion. He also suggests the proper way to do it.
>>It's essentially saying anybody else than Huawei sending cleanup patches is welcome but Huawei is not.
? I don't think you can because the article does not say that.
There's no professional reason to take such an unrelated jab so it feels more like this individual just found an opportunity to settle a score, or has a different problem with Huawei that's harder to support publicly.