Re: [PATCH v6] serial: 8250: fix use-after-free in IRQ chain handling

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 09:15:19PM +0800, Wang Zhaolong wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> > 
> > As I said before, I'm not going to take either until you all can agree.
> > 
> > And yes, a co-developed-by does require a signed-off-by.  Without you
> > all agreeing, none of this is going to be acceptable, sorry.
> > 
> 
> Understood.
> 
> I do not agree to a Co-developed-by tag with Jing/Qiliang.  My v1 was posted
> before that series and already contained the functional lock move.  I
> reviewed/tested parts of the other series against my reproducer, but I do not
> consider this a jointly developed patch.
> 
> I do not require my patch to be the one accepted upstream.  If another version
> is used, I am fine with keeping Reported-by and a Link to my original patch,
> and I can retest the final version against my QEMU ttyS1/ttyS3 shared IRQ
> reproducer if needed.  But I do not provide my Signed-off-by for a
> Co-developed-by tag.
> 
> > Also, all of these really look like they were created/found/whatever by
> > a LLM, which is not being documented, and for that reason alone I think
> > I need to reject all of these until that is properly addressed.
> > 
> 
> Regarding LLM assistance, my v1 explicitly included:
> 
> Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5
> 
> That tag was dropped in later revisions while refreshing the patch. The bug itself
> was found and reproduced by me, not by an LLM.  I used the tool to help refine
> the patch text and write the reproducer/test code, then reviewed the code
> myself and validated the result with the QEMU ttyS1/ttyS3 shared IRQ
> reproducer before submitting.  I also spent time testing/reviewing the other
> series; for example, one earlier revision did not pass the reproducer, which I
> reported in that thread。

That's fine, but you still need to keep the Assisted-by: tag.  For that
reason alone I will not take this.

> I understand this may mean my patch is not taken.  I am fine with that.  I do not want
> to spend more community time on this dispute.
> 
> I will stop here and leave the technical record as-is.  I hope the regression
> can still be fixed upstream without spending more time on the dispute.

Hopefully someone sends a fix for this in a format that can be
accepted...

thanks,

greg k-h