[RFC] docs: netdev: suggest that it's okay to rewrite AI generated patches

[RFC] docs: netdev: suggest that it's okay to rewrite AI generated patches

[Jakub Kicinski]

This has been on my mind. Not sure if anyone actually has the cycles
to rewrite patches, but I'm slightly worried that maintainers may
feel frustrated when dealing with people who just feed their review
to an LLM. Should we make it clear that it's okay to take over?
Or is this already obvious to everyone?

Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
index cc4b5fa3b5c1..907403a4f638 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
@@ -311,6 +311,16 @@ OK with that, then perhaps consider mailing security@kernel.org or
 reading about http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros
 as possible alternative mechanisms.
 
+AI-generated fixes
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+AI-generated fixes should carry the ``Assisted-by:`` tag.
+
+Maintainers should treat AI-generated fixes as equivalent to a bug report.
+Taking over and submitting an alternative fix is normally frowned upon.
+It is okay to do so for AI-generated fixes, however, if the posted patch
+is far from the desired implementation. The original reporter must be
+acknowledged with a ``Reported-by:`` tag in those cases.
 
 Co-posting changes to user space components
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- 
2.54.0