linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b15e5448-f199-4449-ac3b-3042447b90f2@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 08:08:53 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 "workflows@...r.kernel.org" <workflows@...r.kernel.org>,
 "ksummit@...ts.linux.dev" <ksummit@...ts.linux.dev>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Dan Williams
 <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
 Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated
 content

On 11/10/25 00:58, Christian Brauner wrote:
...
> This reads like a factual statement about "impressiveness" of the tools.
> Just drop that sentence, please. It doesn't add value to the commit
> message at all.\

Sure thing. Dropped.

...>>> These tools are constantly becoming more capable and
>>> +undoubtedly improve developer productivity. At the same time, reviewer
> 
> "undoubtedly improve developer productivity"?
> Am I reading an advert or kernel documentation about the policy how to
> use new tooling?
> 
> Please keep it factual without statements about what perceived value
> this adds. People use it and we have to have a policy for it. There's no
> need to celebrate it.

I can definitely steer this away from perceived value. But the main
point of this section was to do some impedance matching between
maintainers and contributors. You (the contributor) may be more
productive, but the maintainer just got more patches to review.

So we could easily tone this down by changing:

	These tools are constantly becoming more capable and
	undoubtedly improve developer productivity.

to

	These tools can increase the volume of contributions.

But I do think it's important to make the connection between
reviewer/maintainer scarcity and tooling.