The suggestion about the IRB was made by a third party. Look at the follow up comment from kernel developer Leon Romanovsky.
> ... we don't need to do all the above and waste our time to fill some bureaucratic forms with unclear timelines and results. Our solution to ignore all @umn.edu contributions is much more reliable to us who are suffering from these researchers.
To follow up on my comment here, I think Greg KH's later responses were more reasonable.
> ... we have the ability to easily go back and rip the changes out and we can slowly add them back if they are actually something we want to do.
> I will be working with some other kernel developers to determine if any of these reverts were actually valid changes, were actually valid, and if so, will resubmit them properly later. ... future submissions from anyone with a umn.edu address should be by default-rejected unless otherwise determined to actually be a valid fix
The suggestion about the IRB was made by a third party. Look at the follow up comment from kernel developer Leon Romanovsky.
> ... we don't need to do all the above and waste our time to fill some bureaucratic forms with unclear timelines and results. Our solution to ignore all @umn.edu contributions is much more reliable to us who are suffering from these researchers.
To follow up on my comment here, I think Greg KH's later responses were more reasonable.
> ... we have the ability to easily go back and rip the changes out and we can slowly add them back if they are actually something we want to do.
> I will be working with some other kernel developers to determine if any of these reverts were actually valid changes, were actually valid, and if so, will resubmit them properly later. ... future submissions from anyone with a umn.edu address should be by default-rejected unless otherwise determined to actually be a valid fix