Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] MM transition

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 22/04/2026 21:13, Josh Law wrote:
> On 22 April 2026 20:03:33 BST, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 08:25:24PM +0100, Josh Law wrote:
>>> Hello, since I'm not coming to LSF/BPF because of my age (aw)
>>
>> What is this nonsense?  You aren't coming to LSFMM because you haven't
>> requested an invitation.  If you had requested an invitation, you would
>> have been rejected (because we have limited seats and there are people
>> who are far more qualified than you who did not get an invitation).
> 
> Sorry. Yeah, didn't realise till I googled it.
> 
> 
>> You already have a reputation as a liar [1].  Don't compound it.  At this
>> point I've tentatively assigned to you some other nasty character traits.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/cea99016-5407-4392-9b7d-2e6a994f550f@lucifer.local/
> 
> The "bot" thing has been disproven [1]

The liar part was not. Till the very end you were lying about usage of LLM.

> 
> About the whole trust thing. I'm working hard to get that back, sorry
> but no need to be harsh.

Then stop such presumptuous emails about lib.

> 
> I'm working with Steven here to try and handle the social side, bare
> with me here since I'm not perfect
> 
> [1]:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260402093410.040423b1@gandalf.local.home/
> 
>>> (And I'm more than aware this post is more mm focused, but I'm
>>> representing lib :))
>>
>> No.  You're not.  You sent a presumptive patch adding yourself as lib
>> reviewer, and that was also rejected.  You don't have what we're looking
>> for in a maintainer, and you're starting from rather further behind than
>> somebody with no record.
> 
> No, not in the maintainer way. As in like me being patriotic for the
> directory 

NAK


Best regards,
Krzysztof