linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [v5] 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: <CAADnVQJG-xn4dURVDt4dUVriHeFkLXnUPxA46XFOTBSi-HRGyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 13:03:25 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, LKML <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>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, Simon Glass <simon.glass@...onical.com>, 
	NeilBrown <neilb@...mail.net>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, 
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, 
	workflows@...r.kernel.org, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v5] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 10:51 AM <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Sasha Levin wrote:
> [..]
> > With a rule like the above, 1700+ contributors would have not been able to send
> > their patch in.
>
> Good point, I am not suggesting a Reviewed-by hurdle, but can see it
> reading that way. I expect that there will always be a significant class
> of contributions that will never need author trust to be accepted. Yes,
> would need to be careful not to destroy that wellspring of new
> contributors.

You brought up an excellent point and I think it should be documented
in submitting-patches.rst:
A developer "should be able to demonstrate the
ability to substantively review a contribution of similar complexity
before expecting the kernel community to engage in earnest".

In bpf and netdev communities we ask developers to participate
in code reviews and publish metrics:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/?q=s%3A%22bpf+development+stats%22

A bit gamified rankings, but the message is clear:
want to land patches faster? participate in code reviews!
It reduces maintainers load and demonstrates that code-reviewing
developers actually understand the code, builds maintainer's trust.