Re: checkpatch encouragement improvements (was RE: [MAINTAINERS / KERNEL SUMMIT] AI patch review tools)

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>]

On October 10, 2025 2:11:43 PM GMT-03:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 11:03 AM Bird, Tim <Tim.Bird@sony.com> wrote:
>> > From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
>> But my goal here is to have checkpatch issues show up like gcc errors - early in development,
>> as the errors are made, so they never make it into patch emails.
>
>Running on the source wouldn't expose things which only show up in the
>patch. Missing or other S-o-b errors, missing commit msg, using 'This
>patch/commit...', etc. I think it would be good if we ran checkpatch
>on every patch, but start with only checks with no false positives and
>ones every maintainer agrees on. Then we can add to it from there
>perhaps enabling per subsystem checks.

There are so many simple things that can be done to signal people how to prepare their contribution in a way that will increase the odds that it'll be accepted that don't include AI, just automation, but since this started as an AI review thread and this message is about tags...

Recently a member of our team showed me the review comments from a LLM, Claude iirc, and it , included: 

Submission Guidelines**: ✓ COMPLIANT
 - Has Signed-off-by
 - Has mailing list link
 - Follows kernel patch conventions

But probably that "Has mailing list link" isn't following Linus' latest fatwa, that Link tags should only be used if they add some useful info, not just the original patch. 

To check if that is in place AI may be needed, I think. 

- Arnaldo