From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lf1-f67.google.com (mail-lf1-f67.google.com [209.85.167.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ABF033BBB6 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 11:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.67 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767956455; cv=none; b=BE56dLF0hLOnSKl7vV+4V+QgBOvN+D1N+HzCVCq1ue9jbZ0JUC2lfZijFk+PXJ8bz2IZHlVZRe7e2+L5BHEl+8qQDphBA354Jm6vA3VU/Zad2cjekTjXmsB9XUMYbO//Zu9IO7Cpvj4RAp7FCdRY6evXII1j4Kf/RkNVP7rMUgI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767956455; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hZXJGPMssGAfFbu+bAlt6gHtJ32mOvpL6uEOa1ztUIo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=t3KT/10yeLFhT89YCVdVM2Tf1SQ5PbDbFrVmC8LPgtuABM4B2BItUkGYJjfzvaDN3j1dgj0ACm3vGLM9+xBhf97r8KriN05gyIgnGWV7fglshe5O1CGJrVxumtntF9Zn9MJpYloP/URGCL5H4PNm+NRMtNAG83pFak3P1FRvn84= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b=yEUKQ9Nr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.67 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="yEUKQ9Nr" Received: by mail-lf1-f67.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-59b685d2b79so3982659e87.3 for ; Fri, 09 Jan 2026 03:00:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; t=1767956444; x=1768561244; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bCAkSgcFGLWAnWdp4SQJtJGZ2mOqXTVgkdEMSVyfWUo=; b=yEUKQ9NrYWg/8MqEsPvrtT3Kx/sfUg3lBKkSTHfmNte2HfSRdYx2GmahD9EuuzflJs AV6i3ia8bK0dDQc2vqbUPank3zQivCP+vw+UQGTq5LhAbehOIIJo8j7AQMrL0oNyi2es t4Zq6vUxDlMkDUNCNXblFcQU8YfHmcbcJGtY1E/n9HyKuaVAkWBe2x+JWjCC2PlcGsLB 4d+2s0rbuZe/FmnE+a/Rf/ELkDiX24+4YMi5Ers9lCWtB6ZNX8Tjl+RSdjuhDcz4eAcW De7+iKvXGSvSps75XCFlVdoWCxh4vMuYGOTI93xCPpeZ6Nd0w+XWicmOfAmudo/hQME9 +m+A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1767956444; x=1768561244; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=bCAkSgcFGLWAnWdp4SQJtJGZ2mOqXTVgkdEMSVyfWUo=; b=sGM//E5hBmwcx3cqugWywAXs4WFmyKicyMAREfeHoey1uqyWFo4RdRbVC8R2M4ZniP UWcU6X3SGMEYFcesi5v8CSLDKE66nsSH/bpcOSUT+4ZaAkVAxqQw2Og54XvqNREIYmQi Qy+ow3Hb3WHw/yYU9qUvbVlDZUFwmXe991+LkFAaZWZ1eMMYOwnodXZE8N+y5uVa/5yZ lwuidNT/XD5lPlVLqRs2mrodoHW8d3fVpjLJvFf+yoBvjFiWI281li7+mMRSR0YzxK6a sFPPp3fvvYZzchaTiJRD2REec2Fkzzr4wkXsMTZaxvXAtp+61yh8Zz0Jpd00XaSSyROj sHWQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWrphw+juiJwPj0uRj9EElAzr2UlrQzmzTBQ3J8no5v0svydFCRp1TGiLz6QsoRkYfX4cssbhlnVPo=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwVKza8dkYRdJ6NcQO/Hxm/fifhWsEDZd41QUmYYFcgwJJQHatl N56Uf++kFObpZ1LtRwCTO9/lSilfOPrA1odb1TJU/2sMtgWeNIpZiUEZit8ZWQhN4Gk= X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX5gBfofmWwrpG+DNlVp7mvCyddUiC0X1Hc/Zlpwf35ESFwuoUoHYORC49LNYF9 2JU0KT7nolF00iypjAE81nyvtRy005pGUZu+DNYC/dfKJZ6+IoenzMNub5CnQT9t243Tuf6Kw1O VQr49fjudBQWX/gnpb1VOD+WDupLEzIwB+urQhCsF1fU0RYZlFhKgSwO5PfpE52sZ0rYOmr+HM4 GbAI6tJpFAghmfHadoUe+iSEuxkIjJs5b93x4aeL6FqLuOQXo2mK0vlSxsCLNK8Y9cVNHzCrS5p i2T7ive/5T9FHqT9sYqRR32SWUcM12v2plA2nw3AxVNONmm4C6D47ivDEtQDNj3/l4ZTokAxLwj /hsprtQ3yff0kQg7eSY6cO0lYRGlot1Z6OCJaKcge9pR3GU+KpnfYmBvkkAbD+jZWOb/NcsAMkA 02PdeM6fxUksBiOmZi X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGXxI7r72eOkIy1KhlxJm58/JxPLQ5FF6CoxfgXHR2DOpaiFz27HbBI+CxtT+yMU4/t1/5Biw== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4e04:0:b0:598:de38:9150 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-59b6ebe3029mr3229097e87.0.1767956443522; Fri, 09 Jan 2026 03:00:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([196.207.164.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2adb3069b0e04-59b728badebsm1800519e87.67.2026.01.09.03.00.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 09 Jan 2026 03:00:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 14:00:39 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Steven Rostedt , Dave Hansen , Dave Hansen , James Bottomley , Dave Hansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan , Kees Cook , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Miguel Ojeda , Luis Chamberlain , SeongJae Park , Dan Williams , NeilBrown , Theodore Ts'o , Sasha Levin , Jonathan Corbet , Vlastimil Babka , workflows@vger.kernel.org, ksummit@lists.linux.dev, Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content Message-ID: References: <611c4a95-cbf2-492c-a991-e54042cf226a@lucifer.local> <85614f7f-f217-47e5-a9f7-0a012f6e6ecd@lucifer.local> <6e9cab54-7b66-45e9-af96-e52b3eba1034@intel.com> <5a301272-31ea-44b8-9518-8151edca6c06@sr71.net> <20260108151437.3188cd53@gandalf.local.home> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 07:48:35AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > +cc Jens as reference him > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 03:14:37PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:50:29 -0800 > > Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > > On 1/8/26 11:23, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > > I'm also not sure why we're losing the scrutiny part? > > > > > > > > Something like: > > > > > > > > +If tools permit you to generate series entirely automatically, expect > > > > +additional scrutiny. > > > > > > The reason I resisted integrating this is it tries to draw too specific > > > a line in the sand. Someone could rightfully read that and say they > > > don't expect additional scrutiny because the entire series was not > > > automatically generated. > > I mean you are making an absolutely valid point, I'd say that'd be a rather > silly conclusion to take, but we have to be wary of 'lawyering' the doc > here. > > > > > > > What I want to say is: the more automation your tool provides, the more > > > scrutiny you get. Maybe: > > > > > > Expect increasing amounts of maintainer scrutiny on > > > contributions that were increasingly generated by tooling. > > > > Honestly that just sounds "grumpy" to me ;-) > > > > How about something like: > > > > All tooling is prone to make mistakes that differ from mistakes > > generated by humans. A maintainer may push back harder on > > submissions that were entirely or partially generated by tooling > > and expect the submitter to demonstrate that even the generated > > code was verified to be accurate. > > > > -- Steve > > I don't really read that as grumpy, I understand wanting to be agreeable > but sometimes it's appropriate to be emphatic, which is the entire purpose > of this amendment. > > Taking into account Jens's input too: > > +If tools permit you to generate series automatically, expect > +additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated. > + > +As with the output of any tooling, the result maybe incorrect or > +inappropriate, so you are expected to understand and to be able to defend > +everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, then don't submit the > +resulting changes. > + > +If you do so anyway, maintainers are entitled to reject your series without > +detailed review. This is too subtle. In real life if we suspect a patchset is AI Slop, then we're going to reject the whole thing immediately. No one is going to review all fifteen patches one by one as if we're searching through monkey poo for edible grains of corn. The AI slop patches I've seen were not bad actors. Someone saw a TODO in the file and thought that AI could solve it. The patch compiled, it was formatted correctly and the commit message sounded confident so they sent it. To me the audience for this is maybe a team working on AI and they don't have any kernel developers on staff so they assume they're being helpful sending unreviewed patches. The message should be that every patch needs to be reviewed carefully before it is sent upstream. I've been asked to review patches like this in the past. Get outside help if you need to, but every patch needs to be reviewed. regards, dan carpenter