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

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。

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.

Best regards,
Wang Zhaolong