linux-kernel - Re: [net-next,v22,4/7] net: mtip: Add net_device

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3632215c-24cc-42a3-b565-c2e48be5bdf7@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 14:32:26 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Łukasz Majewski <lukasz.majewski@...lbox.org>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, shawnguo@...nel.org,
	krzk+dt@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
	andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, conor+dt@...nel.org,
	horms@...nel.org, richardcochran@...il.com, robh@...nel.org,
	imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, wahrenst@....net,
	s.hauer@...gutronix.de, kernel@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com
Subject: Re: [net-next,v22,4/7] net: mtip: Add net_device_ops functions to
 the L2 switch driver

> > jakub: maybe add a TODO comment transiently here, since later patch
> > implements the cleanup?
> 
> The mtip_switch_tx() is empty as we have agreed, that I will divide
> this driver to several patches to ease the review.
> 
> Adding TODO seems to only make AI review happy, as:
> 
> - The patch which adds support for FEC_MTIP_L2SW in Kconfig will be
>   sent after the driver is accepted to net-next
> 
> - Those commits are even now bisectable when FEC_MTIP_L2SW is
>   enabled (when I test the setup).
> 
> Anyway, if you still would like to have the TODO comment, then please
> give me a hint how it shall be written to make the AI happy...

I would not make too much effort in keeping the AI happy, for
something we understand is transient. It is currently not a gate for
acceptance.

> And maybe a few my thoughts:
> 
> 1. AI review seems to bring each time different issues - even the
> "grammatic" ones were not provided with the first AI generated review.

The rules are being tweaked as we gain experience with it, so i would
not expect it to produce the same output every time. Even if it was
stable, it is not clear to me if it is reproducible.
 
> 2. I have tried to setup claudie> to run the patch set through it -
> however, it requires a paid account on a cloud/AI vendor (and I guess
> that different vendors' AI engines produce different output for the same
> "AI prompt")?

I expect so. It is clearly not checkpatch.pl and the like were you can
run it 100 times and get the same answer every time. But i think that
is understood. So long as there has been a discussion about its
output, patches should get merged even if there are still AI
comments. It is just another tool used in the review conversations.

	Andrew