Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent coding assistant configuration to Linux kernel

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>]

Em Wed, 30 Jul 2025 12:18:29 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> escreveu:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:34:28 +0100
> Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Which looked like someone else (now Cc'd on this thread) took it public,
> > > and I wanted to see where that ended. I didn't want to start another
> > > discussion when there's already two in progress.    
> > 
> > OK, but having a document like this is not in my view optional - we must
> > have a clear, stated policy and one which ideally makes plain that it's
> > opt-in and maintainers may choose not to take these patches.  
> 
> That sounds pretty much exactly as what I was stating in our meeting. That
> is, it is OK to submit a patch written with AI but you must disclose it. It
> is also the right of the Maintainer to refuse to take any patch that was
> written in AI. They may feel that they want someone who fully understands
> what that patch does, and AI can cloud the knowledge of that patch from the
> author.
> 
> I guess a statement in submitting-patches.rst would suffice, or should it
> be a separate standalone document?

As you pointed earlier on this thread, I think something like this is good
enough:
	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250724175439.76962-1-linux@treblig.org/

E.g. just a couple of paragraphs at submitting-patches should work.
Now, if we end adding an AI-focused instruction set like what it
was proposed here:

	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250725175358.1989323-1-sashal@kernel.org/

I would add a mention and change the text to ask the ones developing
patches with AI/LLM to ensure that AI accessed the ruleset when
possible(*).

(*) sometimes, AI may not have direct access to the internet and/or
    may be using old caches.

Thanks,
Mauro