Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 08:17:09AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-01-08 at 11:56 +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 04:20:04PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On 1/7/26 13:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > Thinking LLMs are 'just another tool' is to say effectively that
> > > > the kernel
> > > > is immune from this. Which seems to me a silly position.
> > >
> > > I had a good chat with Lorenzo on IRC. I had it in my head that he
> > > wanted a really different document than the one I posted. After
> > > talking,
> > > it sounds like he had some much more modest changes in mind. I
> > > caught
> > > him at the end of his day, but I think he's planning to send out a
> > > small
> > > diff on top of what I posted so I can get a better idea of what he
> > > wants
> > > to see tweaked.
> >
> > I enclose the suggested incremental change below.
> >
> > Cheers, Lorenzo
> >
> > ----8<----
> > From ccefc4da6b929914c754c2f898b0eb17d7fb3ebd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> > 2001
> > From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
> > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:55:10 +0000
> > Subject: [PATCH] suggestion
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/process/generated-content.rst | 8 ++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
> > b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
> > index 917d6e93c66d..1423ed9d971d 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
> > @@ -95,3 +95,11 @@ choose how they handle the contribution. For
> > example, they might:
> >   - Ask the submitter to explain in more detail about the
> > contribution
> >     so that the maintainer can feel comfortable that the submitter
> > fully
> >     understands how the code works.
> > +
> > +If tools permit you to generate series entirely automatically,
> > expect
> > +additional scrutiny.
> > +
> > +As with the output of any tooling,
>
>
> >  maintainers will not tolerate 'slop' -
>
> Just delete this phrase (partly because it's very tied to a non-
> standard and very recent use of the word slop, but mostly because it
> doesn't add anything actionable to the reader).

I mean I'm not expecting this to land given Linus's position :)

But if removing this sentence allowed the below in sure.

However personally I think it's very important to say 'slop' here. It's
more so to make it abundantly clear that the kernel takes the position that
we don't accept it.

Nothing else here really does make that clear in my opinion it's all far
too gently worded.

This is with an eye to press reporting also (they've already reported,
again, on the Linus's position that AI tools are just tools which I think
only helps propagate the idea that the kernel is open-for-business for AI
in general slop or otherwise).

>
> > +you are expected to understand and to be able to defend everything
> > you
> > +submit. If you are unable to do so, maintainers may choose to reject
> > your
> > +series outright.
>
> And I thing the addition would apply to any tool used to generate a
> patch set whether AI or not.

Right, yes agreed.

>
> Regards,
>
> James
>

Cheers, Lorenzo