Re: [PATCH] KEYS: Protect user key quota access during instantiation

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 09:30:43PM +0800, Cen Zhang wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> Thanks very much for the detailed feedback and for your patience with this :).
> 
> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> 于2026年10月12日周一 21:03写道：
> >
> >
> > I appreciate the fix but if I'm completely hones the commit message
> > looks like direct LLM output, which is not acceptable.
> >
> > It needs to be proof-readed and edited. For this reason, I want a better
> > iteration before I apply this.
> >
> > Br, Jarkko
> 
> Thanks very much for the detailed feedback and for your patience with this.
> 
> Several people have mentioned that my commit messages look like they were
> generated by an LLM — and to be honest, I did write them with LLM assistance.
> However, they often gave me the feeling of being questioned rather
> than explained.
> I spend most of my time looking for bugs, following my interest, so
> I’m more familiar
> with bug patterns than with the deeper details of the subsystem. That
> means I can
> make mistakes. I’m willing to listen to feedback and keep revising the
> patch until it’s in
> good shape, but the pressure sometimes makes me afraid to continue the
> conversation,
> worried about making more mistakes. Your patient explanation this time
> really means a
> lot to me.
> 
> Of course, I also fully understand that busy developers feel
> uncomfortable when seeing
> unclear or poorly written messages. I just wanted to express my thanks
> for taking the time
> to gently and patiently explain things clearly.
> 
> I’ll carefully rework the commit message following your suggestions to
> make the concurrency
> scenario and the reasoning clearer, and send a new patch once it’s
> ready. I’d appreciate it if
> you could take another look then.

While AI assistance is allowed, if this happens as a pattern, it is
misuse and eager way to credit without due. I.e., you've done 50%
of the work but ignored the human part.

I.e., you also must understand without AI assistance what
the patch does. If you do, it should not a problem to write
a commit message tht simply describes what it does.

To summarize:

1. Actual mistakes are fine and then patch just needs to be iterated.
2. Skipping work is not mistake and it is not cool.

Hope this clears things up.

> 
> Best regards,
> Cen Zhang

Br, Jarkko