On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 22:26:29 +0000, Hui Peng wrote:
> Fix two issues in drivers/pci/vgaarb.c:
>
> 1. In vga_arb_device_init() / vga_arbiter_From_pci_dev(), vga_tryget()
> returns 0 on success and a negative errno on failure, so checking if
> (!vga_tryget(...)) is inverted and skips unlocking on success.
> 2. In vga_arbiter_del_pci_device(), clear any open vga_arb_user_init
> priv->target references pointing to the removed pci_dev so subsequent
> writes or close() on /dev/vga_arbiter do not dereference a freed
> pci_dev.
>
> Fixes: 1d38fe6ee6a8 ("PCI/VGA: Move vgaarb to drivers/pci")
> Assisted-by: LLM
> Signed-off-by: Hui Peng <[email protected]>
> ---
You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent
subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was
AI generated and most likely not tested.
More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing
relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult
and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue.
Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each
patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set.
Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite
worrying.
This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many
contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner,
like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down. Considering all this
is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this
should be considered for review.
Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will
explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per
subsystem, how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not
do if this was posted in a good faith.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
