From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx.treblig.org (mx.treblig.org [46.235.229.95]) (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 BE12838DD1; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:40:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.229.95 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753893658; cv=none; b=oC09eFw2ulP0OPxAsXdJ9TsvELmPA0SzafLvhF/GSUSC0S5h0Ed+0hMKv+tjw2alGvRxOq9h//c+ECIE77JRYrJ28Uq8Z/7TYb///6W9mlD7btwKdg2c8YUZes2pEliq7RiZ0eE/UW4iqOa/6QV8wyD9ZWZrYvod9AkWHJxFfCk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753893658; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MV++cH2GAEMecjjfJMiy5iN+OnKppbKWoUNDv5Jcd+8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Wv2FPFQIcYGUYAq8MRhu0YAgL65BlZKACGfsDeAZPPlqgB7iK5L9Wm9CFGOBfMGn/YySBW+pL7omHwyCygyp0pp5OVdUZkss6nLZ+ndA/Rj7RsAqBsblJ78IWfi6e7/Quw290cKoZa1v2oHFxie1Ib70n8eNx0em53QRbaVx8yU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=treblig.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=treblig.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=treblig.org header.i=@treblig.org header.b=K3S0v9HZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.235.229.95 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=treblig.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=treblig.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=treblig.org header.i=@treblig.org header.b="K3S0v9HZ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=treblig.org ; s=bytemarkmx; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:From:Date:From :Subject; bh=6sLPbRXvL8Nqf2gPmejb047phT2gVvAoedZaMe5bpu4=; b=K3S0v9HZS5WFmGWp Ycl9I6JZuFGY1hU+WrtRYuF/lelksWGLaBFSS3XB0JgI1acFKHwyu8lBgVD7c5rCRvL5w5zF/GcQH jfhH+pSxJV9PVi66b0tV5T22d5JjVmmXbI1aBoJvtHKG92DesorJ/BslJGM6Od8t7Fi5rVnzgUWHA v/Eu4EiCJy+QPIVtApoEETPgHScN6pypm9LrW03xGj2+V4n7p9MPSXSfwmxpZ7LhMO3tTIkFIhBna wZDldFiVkbqpa2CsbvdjYLOLl3mdwG02MWoQPAQVaaSDJDpXrKpFSSu/pFDFRlzFrPtZvaYIwbesr B0CTpNgFGH6vPEnqnA==; Received: from dg by mx.treblig.org with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1uh9r5-001NZ3-1P; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:40:39 +0000 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:40:39 +0000 From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes , Greg KH , Sasha Levin , corbet@lwn.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, kees@kernel.org, konstantin@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent coding assistant configuration to Linux kernel Message-ID: References: <20250727195802.2222764-1-sashal@kernel.org> <7e7f485e-93ad-4bc4-9323-f154ce477c39@lucifer.local> <2025072854-earthen-velcro-8b32@gregkh> <20250730112753.17f5af13@gandalf.local.home> <158707d7-6729-4bb6-bc72-7556d11bfaef@lucifer.local> <20250730121829.0c89228d@gandalf.local.home> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250730121829.0c89228d@gandalf.local.home> X-Chocolate: 70 percent or better cocoa solids preferably X-Operating-System: Linux/6.1.0-34-amd64 (x86_64) X-Uptime: 16:31:09 up 94 days, 44 min, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.04, 0.00 User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.12 (2023-09-09) * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@goodmis.org) wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 16:34:28 +0100 > Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > > Which looked like someone else (now Cc'd on this thread) took it public, (I didn't know of the tab discussion) > > > and I wanted to see where that ended. I didn't want to start another > > > discussion when there's already two in progress. > > > > OK, but having a document like this is not in my view optional - we must > > have a clear, stated policy and one which ideally makes plain that it's > > opt-in and maintainers may choose not to take these patches. > > That sounds pretty much exactly as what I was stating in our meeting. That > is, it is OK to submit a patch written with AI but you must disclose it. It > is also the right of the Maintainer to refuse to take any patch that was > written in AI. They may feel that they want someone who fully understands > what that patch does, and AI can cloud the knowledge of that patch from the > author. > > I guess a statement in submitting-patches.rst would suffice, or should it > be a separate standalone document? If it's separate I think it needs to have a link from submitting-patches.rst to get people to read it. To summarise some other things that came up between the threads: a) I think there should be a standard syntax for stating it is AI written; I'd suggested using a new tag, but others were arguing on the side of reusing existing tags, which seems OK if it is done in a standard way and doesn't confuse existing tools. b) There's a whole spectrum of: i) AI wrote the whole patch based on a vague requirement ii) AI is in the editor and tab completes stuff iii) AI suggests fixes/changes which do you care about? c) But then once you get stuff suggesting fixes/changes people were wondering if you should specify other non-AI tools as well. That might help reviewers who get bombed by a million patches from some conventional tool. d) Either way there needs to be emphasis that the 'Signed-off-by' is a human declaring it's all legal and checked. Dave > -- Steve > -- -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code ------- / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux | Happy \ \ dave @ treblig.org | | In Hex / \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/