I can’t empathise with the author. It seems like they’re only interested in OSS when a) they get credit, and b) for only fixing problems that affect them.
> instead he implemented his own version of the fix. I told him that I would really appreciate if he could accept a patch from me, so that I could receive credit for fixing this issue and become a kernel contributor.
In other words, you asked a maintainer to accept an inferior fix just so you can put “kernel contributor” on your resume.
> My company and I should have received proper credit for solving this issue, especially considering how much effort we put into it.
No one asked you to do this. You aren’t owed anything when you do an unasked favour for someone else. Also, the only reason you put so much effort into this was to fix your own problem. Which, from my understanding, is now fixed. You seem to have no interest in fixing other problems (which you were given an opportunity to do). IMHO this attitude doesn’t qualify for contributor status.
> instead he implemented his own version of the fix. I told him that I would really appreciate if he could accept a patch from me, so that I could receive credit for fixing this issue and become a kernel contributor.
In other words, you asked a maintainer to accept an inferior fix just so you can put “kernel contributor” on your resume.
> My company and I should have received proper credit for solving this issue, especially considering how much effort we put into it.
No one asked you to do this. You aren’t owed anything when you do an unasked favour for someone else. Also, the only reason you put so much effort into this was to fix your own problem. Which, from my understanding, is now fixed. You seem to have no interest in fixing other problems (which you were given an opportunity to do). IMHO this attitude doesn’t qualify for contributor status.