Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix vm reference leak in mock_gem_device()

[Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>]

Hi Joonas,

First of all, I sincerely apologize for my very late reply, and thank you
for taking the time to raise these concerns.

I have read your message carefully. Your criticism is justified, not only
regarding this particular patch, but also regarding the way I have been
submitting patches to the kernel community.

For this patch, I failed to properly assess the severity and scope of the
issue before submitting it. This is a selftest-only cleanup, and it should
never have been marked for stable backporting. I also failed to pay
sufficient attention to the subsystem's coding conventions and teardown
ordering. These are things I should have checked myself before asking
maintainers to review the change.

I have revisited the relevant code and revised the patch to address these
issues. The v2 removes the Fixes and stable tags, corrects the subject
prefix, and adjusts the cleanup ordering. I understand that correcting
these details now does not excuse the lack of care in the original
submission.

I also want to be transparent about the use of AI tools. The initial
finding came from static analysis, and I used DeepSeek and GPT 6.1 Sol to
help examine the finding and prepare the patch. However, I was the one
who decided to submit it, and I am fully responsible for its correctness,
testing, and presentation. Using these tools does not reduce that
responsibility, and I should not have submitted a patch without
sufficient independent verification.

More importantly, I owe you and the other maintainers an apology for my
broader submission practices. I submitted far too many patches in a short
period of time without giving each one the attention it deserved. I also
failed to respond to review comments and requests for changes, including
requests to acknowledge AI assistance. I understand how frustrating this
must have been, especially when maintainers are spending their own
limited time reviewing contributions.

You were right to question whether I was taking the review process
seriously. Looking back at how I handled those submissions, I can
understand why they gave that impression. I regret that my actions wasted
maintainers' time and undermined their trust in my contributions.

I am changing how I approach kernel contributions. I will stop submitting
patches in bulk, review outstanding feedback individually, and prioritize
resolving existing discussions over sending new patches. Going forward, I
will submit changes only after I have examined the relevant code paths,
checked the subsystem conventions, and performed appropriate validation. I
will also make sure that any AI assistance is properly acknowledged.

I understand that trust cannot be restored simply by writing an apology.
It will take consistent care and follow-through in future contributions,
and I intend to demonstrate that through my actions.

I have prepared a revised version of this patch, but I also understand if
you do not consider this particular cleanup worth pursuing. I will
respect that decision and will not continue pushing it if you would
prefer to leave it aside.

Thank you again for your feedback, and I am genuinely sorry for the
unnecessary review burden and for not responding sooner.

Regards,
Wentao