From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: davem@davemloft.net
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC] docs: netdev: additional info requirements for bug fixes
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 13:47:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260727204724.2787038-1-kuba@kernel.org> (raw)
Knowing how AI generated patches were tested would be great help
when reviewing them. Explicitly ask people to describe discovery
and validation process they followed.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
---
Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
index ec7b9aa2877f..ffec42effe66 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
@@ -263,6 +263,34 @@ as a patch to the list with a commit message explaining the technical
problems with the reverted commit. Reverts should be used as a last resort,
when original change is completely wrong; incremental fixes are preferred.
+Bug fixes
+~~~~~~~~~
+
+All bug fixes must clearly state how the issue was discovered and validated,
+and how the fix was tested. This should be done in plain English, not with
+special tags or annotations.
+
+Example statements describing discovery:
+
+- discovered by a non-AI static analysis tool.
+- discovered by an AI code review agent.
+- discovered by manual code inspection.
+- triggered during code development.
+- triggered in CI testing.
+- observed on a machine in real use.
+
+If the issue was not observed in reality (e.g. it was caught by an AI tool
+or manual code inspection), the next sentence should describe the
+reproduction. The reproduction should state whether kernel modifications
+were necessary (e.g. inserting a delay to widen the race). The commit message
+must disclose if error injection or loading a special kernel module was used
+to trigger the issue. The reproduction steps should be included in the commit
+message if they are short (roughly 10 lines or fewer); longer reproducers can
+be posted online with a link included.
+
+The testing statement should explain whether the fix was tested against the
+reproducer and against kernel selftests.
+
Stable tree
~~~~~~~~~~~
--
2.55.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-07-27 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-27 20:47 Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2026-07-27 22:25 ` [RFC] docs: netdev: additional info requirements for bug fixes Jakub Kicinski
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=20260727204724.2787038-1-kuba@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/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