All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
	andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC] docs: netdev: additional info requirements for bug fixes
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 13:47:24 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260727204724.2787038-1-kuba@kernel.org> (raw)

Knowing how AI generated patches were tested would be great help
when reviewing them. Explicitly ask people to describe discovery
and validation process they followed.

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
index ec7b9aa2877f..ffec42effe66 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
@@ -263,6 +263,34 @@ as a patch to the list with a commit message explaining the technical
 problems with the reverted commit. Reverts should be used as a last resort,
 when original change is completely wrong; incremental fixes are preferred.
 
+Bug fixes
+~~~~~~~~~
+
+All bug fixes must clearly state how the issue was discovered and validated,
+and how the fix was tested. This should be done in plain English, not with
+special tags or annotations.
+
+Example statements describing discovery:
+
+- discovered by a non-AI static analysis tool.
+- discovered by an AI code review agent.
+- discovered by manual code inspection.
+- triggered during code development.
+- triggered in CI testing.
+- observed on a machine in real use.
+
+If the issue was not observed in reality (e.g. it was caught by an AI tool
+or manual code inspection), the next sentence should describe the
+reproduction. The reproduction should state whether kernel modifications
+were necessary (e.g. inserting a delay to widen the race). The commit message
+must disclose if error injection or loading a special kernel module was used
+to trigger the issue. The reproduction steps should be included in the commit
+message if they are short (roughly 10 lines or fewer); longer reproducers can
+be posted online with a link included.
+
+The testing statement should explain whether the fix was tested against the
+reproducer and against kernel selftests.
+
 Stable tree
 ~~~~~~~~~~~
 
-- 
2.55.0


             reply	other threads:[~2026-07-27 20:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-27 20:47 Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2026-07-27 22:25 ` [RFC] docs: netdev: additional info requirements for bug fixes Jakub Kicinski
2026-07-28  1:08   ` Sabrina Dubroca

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20260727204724.2787038-1-kuba@kernel.org \
    --to=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.