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

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

Message-ID: <20260108095933-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 10:01:52 -0500
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
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, Jan 08, 2026 at 03:48:14PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> 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

It is not the issue that checkpatch motivated something. The issue is
that a lot of people don't understand that "checkpatch complained" is
not motivation enough to make a change. I expect this holds for all
tools.

-- 
MST