[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMbZB6Nzg5LX970tBFzbRFbJ16Ng=x0eHomYOpd=ktsmE=dv7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:46:24 -0800
From: Te-Hsiu Huang <tehsiu.huang@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: rtl8723bs: refactor BSS Coexistence channel
report logic
> > > And did you use AI to generate this patch?
> > I used AI tools to polish the language of my commit message and to
> > perform a parity check, ensuring the refactored boolean logic is
> > functionally identical to the original code.
>
> Then as per our development rules, you must document this properly.
> Please read and follow them for when you resubmit this.
>
> > 3. Since I do not have the physical hardware, I performed a manual
> > check (by AI verification) to ensure the logic remains identical.
>
> AI can not "verify" anything, you must always check that, sorry.
>
> greg k-h
Hi Greg,
I apologize for the poor phrasing. I did not mean that I relied solely
on AI to verify the code. To ensure the refactor was correct, I
performed a manual line-by-line audit to verify that the logic remains
identical to the original implementation.
I understand that I am responsible for the code's correctness. I will
properly document the use of AI tools according to the rules and
resubmit this as part of V3, including splitting the changes and
providing more test details.
Thank you for the guidance!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists