Re: No that's not how it works
Have you heard of email attachments? They're really cool. Been using them myself for 20+ years.
Surprisingly enough, yes, I have heard of them.
Proper patch submission etiquette - and not just for LKML - strongly recommends that patches be sent to the mailing list as attachments, not inline.
I see. So, hmm, there's this document, you see, and if you look at section 6 you will read this (mildly reformatted by me to preserve bold &c, text unaltered):
6) No MIME, no links, no compression, no attachments. Just plain text
Linus and other kernel developers need to be able to read and comment on the changes you are submitting. It is important for a kernel developer to be able to “quote” your changes, using standard e-mail tools, so that they may comment on specific portions of your code.
For this reason, all patches should be submitted by e-mail “inline”.
Warning Be wary of your editor’s word-wrap corrupting your patch, if you choose to cut-n-paste your patch.
Do not attach the patch as a MIME attachment, compressed or not. Many popular e-mail applications will not always transmit a MIME attachment as plain text, making it impossible to comment on your code. A MIME attachment also takes Linus a bit more time to process, decreasing the likelihood of your MIME-attached change being accepted.
Exception: If your mailer is mangling patches then someone may ask you to re-send them using MIME.
See Documentation/process/email-clients.rst for hints about configuring your e-mail client so that it sends your patches untouched.
So, well, I'm sure the people who wrote that don't have any say in how people are expected to submit Linux patches. Who is this 'Linus' guy anyway, and what's he doing telling us what do do?
I should feel sorry for you for making such a fool of yourself in public, but I don't, because, really, how hard was it to check what the guidelines actually were? Too hard, I suppose. Unlike Sarah Novotny, who clearly has read them.