From: Chuck Wolber <chuckwolber@gmail.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@redhat.com>,
shuah@kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
safety-architecture@lists.elisa.tech, acarmina@redhat.com,
kstewart@linuxfoundation.org, chuck@wolber.net
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 PATCH 1/3] Documentation: add guidelines for writing testable code specifications
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 21:02:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAB=6tBQP3aCDWch4ZcEYMqFsJ4OKXSyC_hb9V9hA7ZZty7vFeQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <85166a8a-ad54-42d0-a09f-43e0044cf4f4@redhat.com>
[Reposting with apologies for the dup and those inflicted by the broken Gmail
defaults. I have migrated away from Gmail, but some threads are still stuck
there.]
On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 7:35 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >> +------------
> >> +The Documentation/doc-guide/kernel-doc.rst chapter describes how to document the code using the kernel-doc format, however it does not specify the criteria to be followed for writing testable specifications; i.e. specifications that can be used to for the semantic description of low level requirements.
> >
> > Please, for any future versions, stick to the 80-column limit; this is
> > especially important for text files that you want humans to read.
> >
> > As a nit, you don't need to start by saying what other documents don't
> > do, just describe the purpose of *this* document.
> >
> > More substantially ... I got a way into this document before realizing
> > that you were describing an addition to the format of kerneldoc
> > comments. That would be good to make clear from the outset.
> >
> > What I still don't really understand is what is the *purpose* of this
> > formalized text? What will be consuming it? You're asking for a fair
> > amount of effort to write and maintain these descriptions; what's in it
> > for the people who do that work?
>
> I might be wrong, but sounds to me like someone intends to feed this to
> AI to generate tests or code.
Absolutely not the intent. This is about the lossy process of converting human
ideas to code. Reliably going from code to test requires an understanding of
what was lost in translation. This project is about filling that gap.
> In that case, no thanks.
>
> I'm pretty sure we don't want this.
Nor I. If you find any references in our work that amount to a validation of
your concerns, please bring them to our attention.
..Ch:W..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-20 21:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-10 16:59 [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Add testable code specifications Gabriele Paoloni
2025-09-10 16:59 ` [RFC v2 PATCH 1/3] Documentation: add guidelines for writing " Gabriele Paoloni
2025-09-15 22:33 ` Jonathan Corbet
2025-09-17 15:24 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2025-10-20 19:35 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-20 20:54 ` Chuck Wolber
2025-10-20 21:02 ` Chuck Wolber [this message]
2025-10-21 15:37 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-21 16:27 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2025-10-21 16:34 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-21 16:43 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2025-09-10 16:59 ` [RFC v2 PATCH 2/3] /dev/mem: Add initial documentation of memory_open() and mem_fops Gabriele Paoloni
2025-09-15 22:39 ` Jonathan Corbet
2025-09-16 7:29 ` Chuck Wolber
2025-09-17 15:38 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2025-09-10 17:00 ` [RFC v2 PATCH 3/3] selftests/devmem: initial testset Gabriele Paoloni
2025-10-21 7:35 ` Greg KH
2025-10-21 17:40 ` Alessandro Carminati
2025-10-21 7:35 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Add testable code specifications Greg KH
2025-10-21 9:42 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2025-10-21 16:46 ` Greg KH
2025-10-22 14:06 ` Gabriele Paoloni
2025-10-22 17:13 ` Greg KH
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='CAB=6tBQP3aCDWch4ZcEYMqFsJ4OKXSyC_hb9V9hA7ZZty7vFeQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=chuckwolber@gmail.com \
--cc=acarmina@redhat.com \
--cc=chuck@wolber.net \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=gpaoloni@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kstewart@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=safety-architecture@lists.elisa.tech \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).