Op did all the research and multiple implementations of a fix. Ellerman refactored the fix to be simpler, but the effect is the same.
> The kernel style guide specifically mentions to avoid using conditional compilation where possible, and as a result, Michael Ellerman's patch is far cleaner.
It more seems like he knew about IS_ENABLED and Miculas didn't, because he uses `IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PPC32)` instead of Miculas' `#ifdef CONFIG_PPC32`. Besides, Ellerman's changes are all inside `#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_FPU_REGS` blocks anyway so I'm not sure this was a major consideration. Using `IS_ENABLED` gets you 90% of the way to the "cleaner" patch, and in a ~30 line patch I don't know if it's worth golfing further.
Miculas' patch: https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2022-June/24...
Ellerman's patch: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220609133245.573565-1-mpe@elle...
EDIT:
Oh he also got a code review giving him exactly these tips [0]. IDK, getting real "I don't want to coach this rookie, I'll just do this myself, thanks for the tip" vibes from Ellerman here. Maybe that's valid, but it seems like not a wonderful way to keep people interested in kernel dev.
[0]: https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2022-June/24...
As for the clean patch - part of the issue is that Miculas was slightly overengineering some of it with the additional macros and added noise with extra conditions on the fpidx declaration.
Ellerman's "I don't want to coach this rookie" vibe is somewhat understandable given this is the security mailing list - it's just not the time and the place to be going back-and-forth.
* What then is the hard part, if this is the "hard part"
* What is kernel contributor status a "prize" for then, if not for contributing to the kernel?
* Why all the focus on OP wanting recognition for the work, and 0 on the dev who merged the patch. Why not have all patches be merged by a committe/ someone who isn't the author.
Incentives clearly aren't aligned and I think if the OP would have taken this up privately they could have worked it out. Instead you get this public attack on people that we already have far too few of and one that misrepresents the interaction. That's where I draw the line: you keep your dirty laundry inside until you've exhausted every avenue for redress if you really care that much. Note that Ellerman explicitly offered to work with the OP if he wanted to be credited for a patch to the kernel on another bug, which is one way to differentiate between drive-by contributors and long term relationships.
All in all I think everybody could have done better here but Michael Ellerman's wrongs are far less clear to me than what the OP did and I'm fairly sure if there had been a ready for inclusion patch or better guidelines about how to deal with various degrees of crediting contributors (and probably for a more substantial fix) that there would have been no problem either.
Personally I don't see the problem at all: the LKML thread is archived for eternity, the contribution of the OP is clear, if he wants to say he's contributed code to the kernel I don't think anybody would object to that and Ellerman did his job as a maintainer, even if he could have handled it with some more grace I'm more than willing to forgive him. If I had been in the OPs place I would have probably jumped at the opportunity suggested by the invitation, and I definitely would not have 'paraphrased' the interaction or use the word 'robbed' without first reaching out to Michael Ellerman because those two things alone undo any goodwill created by the submission of the patch.