From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-183.mta1.migadu.com (out-183.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.183]) (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 B532838B7B3 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2026 09:47:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.183 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775036830; cv=none; b=LuTr5/viHi9gReNJ9fb/H1rKuebMBHi2fMZ3UVlnkPOd2IEPkjzgD9ddc4WitmEcdvq3BAQBmYfDg6vJ57akpQiZcI7iL9yk6an6XrwG3IqyiKFPSVZp3IB9T83/5RNxHXDJRFaP6/w6zTtYVz0/0RKsRWz83stQUICet/eBbOw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775036830; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gV29aA0F49WvizgdXTFBJ39BqQKP3arJO+tBvQ/foMI=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=UXUKSkl2OMaF3lpDXZukJbnm5jtas0k+89T8ZDJElfak4Erlwd+M6i6fV+pzo3lrAGkoMSOVVVh6NUBLqS5iPWfsEOgifgolERmY8qVFX0JnfbPvG40rd42388H6b4GUjC+iOKkZN/7GbSl0TlUGYNBqU0n5WIU8UcXjFj3mdfU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=sM0e9nzC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.183 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="sM0e9nzC" Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2026 11:46:59 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1775036827; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=XuZVRNkcYSjuy9wpL5Z6iKgYbguwWgjBv7neU//wlIo=; b=sM0e9nzCzwhi7IEkbz4JXxcQwUS+Z7+BVfJ2yAMap9DMySss8V5tsj+BePP5ZjC5vf2sNH +Y5fPuL0IlyfaSFJX7fof/cTgz+kcGwHKnr36/PtBlwQoOVgagL2InUgOD40xG/T/fzbdp xEveBFfI3xb8XzET0BHBYLrR66haxwQ= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Luka Gejak To: Greg KH CC: omer.e.idrissi@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] rtw_sdio_if1_init cleanup and small logic tweak In-Reply-To: <2026040119-smasher-oozy-8d41@gregkh> References: <2026040119-smasher-oozy-8d41@gregkh> Message-ID: <5252F4DA-4FB2-4217-B13E-4B6AF912220B@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On April 1, 2026 10:29:37 AM GMT+02:00, Greg KH wrote: >On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 10:25:22PM +0200, Luka Gejak wrote: >> Hi Omer, >> Thank you for submitting this patch series=2E Efforts to clean up the= =20 >> initialization paths in these legacy Realtek staging drivers are=20 >> always welcome, as they are a necessary step toward aligning the code= =20 >> with upstream kernel standards and eventually moving the driver out of >> staging=2E >> I have performed a detailed technical audit of the series=2E While the= =20 > > > >Luka, this review REALLY looks like it was AI generated, and then >cut-pasted into here=2E Please do not do that=2E > >If you wish to use AI to generate reviews, great, then use some of the >tools we already have, and notify the submitter that this is an AI >report and that it should be treated as such=2E Don't try to pass it off >as a human review that must actually be trusted=2E > >thanks, > >greg k-h Hi Greg, You're right, I used a tool to help format the response because=20 English is not my native language and I wanted the review to be clear=2E I see now that it made the response look like a bot report and I=20 apologize for that=2E I'll stick to writing reviews manually going=20 forward=2E However the technical issues I pointed out (like the inverted _SUCCESS/_FAIL logic in the staging headers and the uninitialized=20 pnetdev pointer) are real regressions I found while auditing the code=20 on my local tree=2E I'll make sure future feedback is direct and clearly identified if I use any tooling=2E Thanks for the correction=2E Best regards, Luka Gejak