From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.tipi-net.de (mail.tipi-net.de [194.13.80.246]) (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 07C9642882B for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 06:58:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790751498; cv=none; b=oeo/zjuSUNQ/VIzpAJJzCIPGsP8+K3equvwotOoi1qTq2wWEK7kL6J5hJgltaSVQTdam6Oo8ZBQZrHsCaLUqMpQEdBaK2vF6e/lxz71dfp0VCH89uEw8J7mai11UwOFwhwOc0RLlDESsbi8skraIYnA9deElqjcR1zVZ0/VXkqU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790751498; c=relaxed/simple; bh=10ygnyDXLsbMzBOxxQz4gF9lLGk5DMAr5mE+JT8uSWs=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=Bxu2nTy8MJhuiYAUuBQE95+FMWbk9TGXrfcMYXertOX+WFEuYIEjRoevNJSfVaoInDZqhzfTNz0N0eYgP2QuaAA6BaSHaHj0Z5ChN6ucPfurk3N1cwNrGIqnpdbKEdYl2sKO8RchLEQY6BxlV7owbVu/qj5JAnsKTqhokUBqA28= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b=oHpleDkU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b="oHpleDkU" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id DD073A3839; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:57:49 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tipi-net.de; s=dkim; t=1790751471; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=zWPK2Y3TKmTZrht9/1CRYUXw6ygVs3ZjMmi+AgaKhmI=; b=oHpleDkUZkpycehkNZLHanM86ePJdzn0ggndQTeeygmp58sqpYlTO3gHmcVaOABYyaA7IE V5f726sLjcKPpfvj5rB27axJfU5gN6ClX0iw9wNfruyhmifkHdgQtyRsRWAz1lAU5Qkk9w C0AG9YYkvPQezqlLe5x3ZcvPwcj4Ym9kXJN0tJJ4AbvnfOAia83qo5jqr+GYFfjtv5wVjD kvzsPWSUeXlr05WMyqB9qaLA0xvYTnmf9k60RmvxR8lXa7bAverWihNW1keiSfPqTCLF8x LqMYxRtpep7tLLmovDKkULATlTPzn0z8N3kvoiKi7uLqAhplJ3JAgarB/Pa4Ww== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:57:49 +0200 From: Nicolai Buchwitz To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, horms@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: additional info requirements for bug fixes In-Reply-To: <20260928184904.2496960-1-kuba@kernel.org> References: <20260928184904.2496960-1-kuba@kernel.org> Message-ID: X-Sender: nb@tipi-net.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 On 28.9.2026 20:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > Knowing how AI generated patches were tested would be a great help > when reviewing them. Explicitly ask people to describe the discovery > and validation process they followed. > > I posted this as an RFC a while back and there were some concerns > from developers that it will gum up the process. With Linus's > recent complaints about the size of our PRs, we really need > this information. I launched an AI bot which complains if > people don't explain how bugs were discovered and tested > (look for netdev-bot+sinfo@kernel.org, s=series info). > We need to document this requirement. > > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski > --- > rfc: https://lore.kernel.org/20260727204724.2787038-1-kuba@kernel.org > --- > Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > index 1739d9f856c3..d46011a9b4b6 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > @@ -283,6 +283,37 @@ 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 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. That said, the information does not have > to be > +provided if the existing trailers imply it (e.g. ``Reported-by: > syzbot...`` > +implies the discovery method and validation). > + > +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 discovery does not imply the issue was triggered, the next > sentence > +should describe the reproduction. The commit message must disclose if > kernel > +modifications (e.g. inserting a delay to widen the race, a loadable > module > +with the right sequence of calls) or error injection were necessary > for > +reproduction. 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. If the bug is in a hardware > driver, > +the testing statement must include information about the HW on which > the > +fix was tested. > + > Stable tree > ~~~~~~~~~~~ Reviewed-by: Nicolai Buchwitz Thanks, Nicolai