Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] agents: add a skill to determine stable tags

[Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2026 at 05:10:55PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>Marco had some thoughts on this just today:
>
>https://lore.kernel.org/CANpmjNMvM_TCs7Fao9+gM-NNpQyBKYumSuWOt_03ZX+tLwbjWw@mail.gmail.com

This makes a lot of sense.

>And Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst does ask for real
>things, not theoretical stuff.

We've actually dropped[1] the "theoretical" part.

The problem we were seeing is that bots were sending real fixes, with a solid
changelog, but not adding the stable@ tag.

Apparently our wording is pretty strong: unless you can prove that the issue is
real, it remains theoretical. You'd have to either show a real case where you
hit the bug, or to have reproduced the issue and can provide a way for us to
reproduce it.

Most bots can't actually do that for technical reasons, even if the bug is 100%
affecting our users, so they don't add the stable@ tag.

>Also, I would keenly like to see changelogs clearly explain *why* a
>backport is proposed.  As I have said 1000 times, "when fixing a bug
>please clearly describe the userspace-visible runtime effects of that
>bug".  Can we pleeeeeeeeeeze get this requirement clearly enshrined in
>this patcset somewhere where the LLMs will read it and comply?  It's
>really simple for the LLMs to cook up a paragraph for this, if so
>directed.

This is a great point, and would make our lives much easier too.

It sounds a lot like something that humans would benefit from hearing as well?
If so, I can send a patch tomorrow to add it to
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst and refer to it explicitly in the
agents file?


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261020142537.3533510-1-sashal@kernel.org/

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha