* OP didn't identify the bug, it had been reported years prior. OP identified the root cause and suggested a working fix.

* What then is the hard part, if this is the "hard part"

* What is kernel contributor status a "prize" for then, if not for contributing to the kernel?

* Why all the focus on OP wanting recognition for the work, and 0 on the dev who merged the patch. Why not have all patches be merged by a committe/ someone who isn't the author.

The maintainer (not random dev) didn't "merge" the patch - they rewrote an entirely new patch. Ate you arguing OP should be credited for that work? Sure, the maintainer could have guided OP towards the same patch over multiple exchanges/days, but it is their prerogative - they have to maintain the code going forward and are not obliged to accept patches that are in rough shape (in their judgement). OP did contribute to the kernel - but not by having their code included as they had hoped.

Michael Ellerman is between a rock and a hard place here: he could have done better and that's something that may have to be added to the guidelines for the patch contributors, at the same time maintainers have a massive workload and this was a tiny, broken patch submitted in a non-standard way by a new contributor. He could have made the origins of the few lines of code clearer but maintainers do this all the time, they usually are more focused on the quality of the code, and getting a fix in (even if it isn't yours) and may not realize that the contribution is insignificant compared to the fact that someone is very much focused on the credit.

Incentives clearly aren't aligned and I think if the OP would have taken this up privately they could have worked it out. Instead you get this public attack on people that we already have far too few of and one that misrepresents the interaction. That's where I draw the line: you keep your dirty laundry inside until you've exhausted every avenue for redress if you really care that much. Note that Ellerman explicitly offered to work with the OP if he wanted to be credited for a patch to the kernel on another bug, which is one way to differentiate between drive-by contributors and long term relationships.

All in all I think everybody could have done better here but Michael Ellerman's wrongs are far less clear to me than what the OP did and I'm fairly sure if there had been a ready for inclusion patch or better guidelines about how to deal with various degrees of crediting contributors (and probably for a more substantial fix) that there would have been no problem either.

Personally I don't see the problem at all: the LKML thread is archived for eternity, the contribution of the OP is clear, if he wants to say he's contributed code to the kernel I don't think anybody would object to that and Ellerman did his job as a maintainer, even if he could have handled it with some more grace I'm more than willing to forgive him. If I had been in the OPs place I would have probably jumped at the opportunity suggested by the invitation, and I definitely would not have 'paraphrased' the interaction or use the word 'robbed' without first reaching out to Michael Ellerman because those two things alone undo any goodwill created by the submission of the patch.