linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v3] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <6041b4b8-303a-f12b-24ea-92b836b7a025@inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:48:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>, 
    Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, 
    Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>, 
    Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
    Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, 
    Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, 
    Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, 
    SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, 
    Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, NeilBrown <neilb@...mail.net>, 
    Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, 
    Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, 
    workflows@...r.kernel.org, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated
 content



On Thu, 8 Jan 2026, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 08:17:09AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > +you are expected to understand and to be able to defend everything
> > > you
> > > +submit. If you are unable to do so, maintainers may choose to reject
> > > your
> > > +series outright.
> >
> > And I thing the addition would apply to any tool used to generate a
> > patch set whether AI or not.
>
> Exactly. I saw my share of "fix checkpatch warning" slop. This is no
> different.

I guess that most maintainers can easily recognize a patch that was
motivated by checkpatch, Coccinelle, smatch etc.  Then the review can be
informed by previous experience with the tool.  Will the same be the case
for AI?  Or does it not matter?

julia