[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.2508041219130.22517@gjva.wvxbf.pm>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 12:20:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <kosina@...il.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, corbet@....net, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
workflows@...r.kernel.org, josh@...htriplett.org, kees@...nel.org,
konstantin@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@...blig.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent coding assistant configuration to Linux
kernel
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > This way we can extend MAINTAINERS to indicate which subsystems are
> > more open to research work (drivers/staging/ comes to mind) vs ones that
> > aren't.
> >
> > Some sort of a "traffic light" system:
> >
> > 1. Green: the subsystem is happy to receive patches from any source.
> >
> > 2. Yellow: "If you're unfamiliar with the subsystem and using any
> > tooling to generate your patches, please have a reviewed-by from a
> > trusted developer before sending your patch".
> >
> > 3. No tool-generated patches without prior maintainer approval.
>
> This sounds good, with a default on red. Which would enforce the opt-in
> part.
I strongly believe that at least a distinction between 'static tools' and
'LLM-based tools' needs to be introduced here.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists