From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1235C352C5E; Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768489465; cv=none; b=sibYJme1dnTRctX/rsz65vErGXtZUlsvXnH8ktFiaP9GJXSXkc8bPJbAHYyzzAn9UsagDnZu+TXJjAtKMmN3FPsjGi3g/tE6gDtApcRVf6FVhpVrZsjFWpXYz6Ivx+/Xw7ZU5cbFLewJNiSsg7/TqP+NKMa9BJA21ilmo9HSp78= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768489465; c=relaxed/simple; bh=W+/hsOufitxJT0wRIw4Z0krHmUQrYDhKT22VqlQwNQw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=JaWyt+C4+PUe53vCW7ubCmF1e6OK2Ktvbei8zM2jIYq+7QMHXcnbd+G1YEIKAQWEFVnbKf1vO+ts4aHVU6xNTgrxuSpZErlZ1IQx1y+S9wCLfqc5NJU1FURJpodCIuFbwYz2/wdZPsfcU9qx4SVquVdGDG+Ai7by6vw44Q1dG4c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=YHx2SFf8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="YHx2SFf8" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5230BC116D0; Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:04:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1768489463; bh=W+/hsOufitxJT0wRIw4Z0krHmUQrYDhKT22VqlQwNQw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=YHx2SFf8oSvoj2ZSec3bfA3py8uTdV71Qt4zAQ3Cw2mm+LpuaZf3DGBrRSIXywsIp rEDCvv+4liievZP+fv2Zn5kxnnaPlht6E+2nmyu9ps7bVqAEcmOnRs1YBDzpCVdTyr /X/rU/O7VHNLB2o8zWNpcZMv44QbJEsnT26lgkCl1X/OAvr0fhJ7Uv1z0dOxAyaALy CAVpndIYRzqcGdMwepQxJVr+Dlno24yz8L32lKXAHIByXS1ArkZIIlWPoxzFYkSpBm sHS7PDygssC5FV51089NgIfaKvJBcW02iOLKq0vJy+/4QFWMREZJH6j86X1Fcwd+Wu 07YZMKVYhHKBQ== Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:04:16 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: Dave Hansen Cc: Dave Hansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan , Kees Cook , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Miguel Ojeda , Luis Chamberlain , SeongJae Park , Dan Williams , Steven Rostedt , "Paul E . McKenney" , Simon Glass , NeilBrown , Lorenzo Stoakes , Theodore Ts'o , Sasha Levin , Jonathan Corbet , Vlastimil Babka , workflows@vger.kernel.org, ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v5] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content Message-ID: <20260115150416.GE2842980@google.com> References: <20260113000612.1133427-1-dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> <20260113103609.GA1902656@google.com> <921e154d-7e54-40ff-ae85-97b6cee7f8b2@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <921e154d-7e54-40ff-ae85-97b6cee7f8b2@intel.com> On Tue, 13 Jan 2026, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 1/13/26 02:36, Lee Jones wrote: > ... > >> +Even if your tool use is out of scope, you should still always consider > >> +if it would help reviewing your contribution if the reviewer knows > >> +about the tool that you used. > > > > Parsing ... okay, that took a few goes. How about: > > > > Even if disclosure of your tool isn't mandated, providing this context > > often helps reviewers evaluate your contribution more effectively. > > Clear documentation of your workflow ensures a faster review with less > > contention. > I agree that the sentence is hard to parse. But, I want to explicitly > say "out of scope" to tie this in to the rest of the section. How about > this? > > Even if your tool use is out of scope, consider disclosing how > you used the tool. Clear documentation of your workflow often > helps reviewers do their jobs more efficiently. > > BTW, I do think we're well into diminishing returns territory. I'll roll > this into a v6 if there's a v6. But, if it's pulled in as-is, I think > the original can stay without causing too much harm. Agree. Thanks for considering. > ...>> +Some examples: > >> + - Any tool-suggested fix such as ``checkpatch.pl --fix`` > >> + - Coccinelle scripts > >> + - A chatbot generated a new function in your patch to sort list entries. > >> + - A .c file in the patch was originally generated by a coding > >> + assistant but cleaned up by hand. > >> + - The changelog was generated by handing the patch to a generative AI > >> + tool and asking it to write the changelog. > >> + - The changelog was translated from another language. > > > > Nit: Suggest removing the sporadic use of full-stops (periods) across all lists. > > > > Or add them everywhere - so long as it's consistent. > > The rule that I read is that when the bullets are full, complete > sentences, you should use periods. When they are just nouns or shards of > sentences, leave off the periods. > > I _think_ that's the consensus for how to punctuate bulleted list items. > > But I don't remember where I read that, if it was in Documentation/ > somewhere or it was some random rule on the Internet I decided to apply. The non-consistency of it makes me twitch, but perhaps just my issue. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯]