From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (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 F08473A6414; Thu, 8 Jan 2026 13:41:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767879718; cv=none; b=U3tQR63gsEcPyxUOGOyhE5J1h3zpo2MBsHctt9AbjtEOkbub7giMbgKTNOjEqgBwNSjYlxyAb6KyckqW4xVcIgjokFRKLRNmcIV2G/uQ+koCAOlRLKtYlyC0XzWy6IIokKgDHz7TuJPfRYdGIa95q45NiM+UCjvMy68NtD8Luj4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767879718; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XZ4kzl9jQGhD8KF80M1FWnEADkBaGG+DfLDNU2Zahac=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=hfwABDEF0fY+tMBVJ4zgdCzuSh5Ivczc1hYfgwyw6ptieFYmn+yCSEzT3NTJqLyYp0vmiYQmDU+eYr8P6yapCIm0etKilFQafVf4lRREYClrJuPPeksd+VXng4/VrRJSf09qWm65757GKEy6YpCTPxmeaQfegEJqk9Kx1XLva5U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b=bsWuBO5e; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="bsWuBO5e" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=8xxFFZ56Lyoh99MpLvmn9V6ZFtdBTbeFia4HP1Wct5M=; b=bsWuBO5eu0lpMIDjXjged+T4Vf FaYjzC8Q9YrRs4g2AG6vG7QKnNpHiYIboyrN13aeYY2xPwnQRSKLTnra5arJpzFK07fWEPO0k7ld5 zp9jZsbc2JaitKzXskZuCAqZAPpvNkKym1JJeFfjx76ZpoITz5RsUnyGooYrFVl49jKY=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vdqGO-001xEg-RN; Thu, 08 Jan 2026 14:41:20 +0100 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 14:41:20 +0100 From: Andrew Lunn To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Dave Hansen , Dave Hansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan , Kees Cook , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Miguel Ojeda , Luis Chamberlain , SeongJae Park , Dan Williams , Steven Rostedt , NeilBrown , Theodore Ts'o , Sasha Levin , Jonathan Corbet , Vlastimil Babka , workflows@vger.kernel.org, ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content Message-ID: References: <20260106205105.4037716-1-dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> <1e982055-47c2-43d1-a919-93b3e59f2ed0@lucifer.local> <93aadf2b-0df4-49eb-91fd-b401b44ce3af@sr71.net> <1c74353c-40de-4d0b-a517-92a94f8b4af8@lucifer.local> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1c74353c-40de-4d0b-a517-92a94f8b4af8@lucifer.local> > And it's not like I'm asking for much, I'm not asking you to rewrite the > document, or take an entirely different approach, I'm just saying that we > should highlight that : > > 1. LLMs _allow you to send patches end-to-end without expertise_. As somebody who reviews a lot of networking patches, i already see lots of human generated patches without expertise. So LLM might increase the volume of such patches, but the concept itself is not new, and does not require LLMs. > 2. As a result, even though the community (rightly) strongly disapproves of > blanket dismissals of series, if we suspect AI slop [I think it's useful > to actually use that term], maintains can reject it out of hand. And i do blanket dismiss all but one such patch from an author, and i try to teach that author how to get that one patch into shape, in the hope you can learn the processes and apply it to their other patches. Sometimes the effort works, and you get a new developers joining the community, sometimes it is a lost cause, and they go away after having their patches repeatedly rejected. So i don't think using LLMs makes a difference here. I've seen the same issue with blindly fixing checkpatch warning, sparse warning, other static analysis tool warnings. I just see LLMs are another such tool. > Point 2 is absolutely a new thing in my view. And i would disagree with this statement, it is not new, it already happens. Andrew