From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (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 89AEC2236E5 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 15:44:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762789453; cv=none; b=S59npfKkRss9O2AQEwzlNfffxjl/U7f5lP0/QSIrnxmXLz2VhbCCN9RCGkCbaeL/SYQnzI0vZPWwq8P6tr6A78Y9/g6svbSQsIMY1l9eaLD9HmqKOT0IobgRXd1MICVH7nXhdqD5Nd7VzrHF4BACOn/iFmv1Pb0JVkyyKSrTXI4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1762789453; c=relaxed/simple; bh=m1Hi0yONI4EaULJNgBROwxy7rsqEZV5zIc3zZaLnWA8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qlgIsml6Jg/MWVyXXXbaQMAfMu2dd5gwmrpvN8p1H6unX77QGw1t4pu52J1Ba/wQFtjGx1lcdfz6VKJaVZwlXoako/Pb1LoYPhFSQ/JPJf4w3lIMDdALs4rbrD+yC8+CAhgqr/eiLo7J3EP+TdtIqTJiqViaEAya5XY7VHeWc6g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=oPXpjoEe; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="oPXpjoEe" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net A740640B1B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1762789450; bh=VIBUdo9LhDz++8I9kKiuqHA89LV869bDVf4M/P0h3vg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=oPXpjoEeeIoaYzjFTdIBbf+/0qsCPQ/iOiw/STZrJ9NtYYiYExKtm9ZmOVvcS9vtX ro4O2TUnZFNSnZvzUV3P4oBwT7oGm3161YfUMLpl0WqeCqAiT07urjPAa0k/chAYsw lN451/CvRDGFRhNLN6P7oP1OuYOqfecw0JDON4Qb2V7uvBoHJ9E2JGvsEiiZzH40IC 3lcnTVn8ZESAPhBvpsIy+sNRjZRzRIJ+GGmHjMMeDRwK1uXPdqMU+cbV6jdDdhOBNo dR5CmbDzIUMgfB4xp7QeIViHrVrIrFACte1fHAGT5cUSSGC1jhNNBCCzUDyOrUScFt X2cBxP9CBnzHg== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A740640B1B; Mon, 10 Nov 2025 15:44:10 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Dave Hansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt , Dan Williams , Theodore Ts'o , Sasha Levin , Kees Cook , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Miguel Ojeda , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content In-Reply-To: <414139b0-92bb-4516-8286-732f2d5e6bda@lucifer.local> References: <20251105231514.3167738-1-dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> <11eaf7fa-27d0-4a57-abf0-5f24c918966c@lucifer.local> <87h5v1zzib.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <414139b0-92bb-4516-8286-732f2d5e6bda@lucifer.local> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:44:09 -0700 Message-ID: <878qgdzyd2.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Lorenzo Stoakes writes: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 08:19:24AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> Lorenzo Stoakes writes: >> >> > It also seems slightly odd to produce this in advance of the maintainer's >> > summit, as I felt there was some agreement that the topic should be discussed >> > there? >> > >> > Obviously there may be very good reasons for this but it'd be good for >> > them to be clarified and those who engaged in these discussions to be >> > cc'd also (or at least ping on threads linking!) >> >> The reasoning, from my point of view at least, was to have a starting >> point for the Maintainers Summit discussion. Trying to start from >> scratch in Tokyo seems unlikely to get us far. > > I Would understand if this was an RFC or there was a big block saying 'this > is not yet official' or something, but lt the moment it seems like a change > sent only to the TAB committee as an apparent 'fait complete' with no > indication of it being just a starting point? (forgive me if I missed it). > > I think pinging the relevant threads would have been helpful, but maybe we > need a better procedure in general for this kind of thing. I agree that sending to those threads would have made sense. Folks are busy ... I didn't think of that, and it only occurred to me this weekend that I knew a certain web site where it might make sense to post a note... > I'm not invited to the MS but I wondered if this planned to be discussed > there? I don't really care about my involvement, only that there is > community engagement on this. The agenda has not been worked out, but this topic seems certain to be there once it is. jon