+cc potentially interested parties. Apologies if I missed anybody, just scanned through quickly.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:48:04AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > I think it would have been helpful to ping those engaged in the discussion in > this area in related threads, e.g. [0] and [1]. > > [0]: > https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit/49f1a974-e1e6-4be5-864e-5e0f905e1a8f@paulmck-laptop/T/#m30873ef3dc9bd2c4c95547e81efff3085474f2d9 > [1]: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > I'm not sure what the process was that lead to this, but it feels rather as if > the community were excluded here. > > It also seems slightly odd to produce this in advance of the maintainer's > summit, as I felt there was some agreement that the topic should be discussed > there? > > Obviously there may be very good reasons for this but it'd be good for them to > be clarified and those who engaged in these discussions to be cc'd also (or at > least ping on threads linking!) > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 03:15:14PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > In the last few years, the capabilities of coding tools have exploded. > > As those capabilities have expanded, contributors and maintainers have > > more and more questions about how and when to apply those > > capabilities. > > > > The shiny new AI tools (chatbots, coding assistants and more) are > > impressive. Add new Documentation to guide contributors on how to > > best use kernel development tools, new and old. > > As others have pointed out, this is strangely gleeful, can we please drop it? > > As mentioned in the msummit thread I have a great concern about how the press > might report on this kind of change, as I fear that a 'kernel accepts AI > patches' story might result in a large influx of AI patches from enthusiatic > people which will have a direct impact on maintainer workload. > > I don't think comments like this help in that respect. > > In general I feel that a more restrictive/pessmistic document that can later > be > made less pessimistic/restrictive is a better approach than a broad one on > this > basis. > > > > > Note, though, there are fundamentally no new or unique rules in this > > new document. It clarifies expectations that the kernel community has > > Hmm, I'm not sure the conflation of pre-existing tooling which always required > some degree of understanding vs. a technique which can simply generate entire > patch sets with commentary included is justified. > > While I _do_ like the idea that basic principles that already existed still > exist for LLMs (that's a powerful notion), I wonder if we do in fact do need > some new rules here. > > I think saying this also pushes back on the concept of > maintainer-by-maintainer > policy as 'it's just like it always was' doesn't suggest that it warrants a > higher level of scrutiny. > > > had for many years. For example, researchers are already asked to > > disclose the tools they use to find issues in > > Documentation/process/researcher-guidelines.rst. This new document > > just reiterates existing best practices for development tooling. > > Ironically that document is considerably more strident and firm than this > one :) > > > > > In short: Please show your work and make sure your contribution is > > easy to review. > > I wonder whether we need to be very explicit in stating - please do not > generate patches in large volume with no involvement from you and > _emphasise_ that human involvement is _necessary_. > > In discussion with kernel colleagues who use AI extensively, there is a > very clear pattern than a key part of usefully making use of this tooling > is for there to be an 'expert in the loop' who reviews what is generated to > ensure it is correct. > > I therefore think we either _should_ have a specific rule for LLM-generated > content or should (and it really makes sense actually) have a broad > 'generated content' rule that - you _must_ have a thorough understanding of > what you are doing such that you can review and filter the generated > output. > > I think stating that we will NOT accept series that are generated without > understanding would be very beneficial in all respects, rather than leaving > it somehow implied. > > Being soft or vague here is likely to cause maintainer headaches IMO > (though of course there's only so many who will read a doc etc. being able > to point at the document in reply as a maintainer is useful too). > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <[email protected]> > > Cc: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> > > Cc: Dan Williams <[email protected]> > > Cc: Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]> > > Cc: Sasha Levin <[email protected]> > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]> > > Cc: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > > Cc: Miguel Ojeda <[email protected]> > > Cc: Shuah Khan <[email protected]> > > > > -- > > > > This document was a collaborative effort from all the members of > > the TAB. I just reformatted it into .rst and wrote the changelog. > > > > Changes from v1: > > * Rename to generated-content.rst and add to documentation index. > > (Jon) > > * Rework subject to align with the new filename > > * Replace commercial names with generic ones. (Jon) > > * Be consistent about punctuation at the end of bullets for whole > > sentences. (Miguel) > > * Formatting sprucing up and minor typos (Miguel) > > --- > > Documentation/process/generated-content.rst | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > Documentation/process/index.rst | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 95 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/process/generated-content.rst > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst > > b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000000000..5e8ff44190932 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst > > @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ > > +============================================ > > +Kernel Guidelines for Tool Generated Content > > +============================================ > > + > > +Purpose > > +======= > > + > > +Kernel contributors have been using tooling to generate contributions > > +for a long time. These tools are constantly becoming more capable and > > +undoubtedly improve developer productivity. At the same time, reviewer > > +and maintainer bandwidth is a very scarce resource. Understanding > > This is absolutely the key issue here imo, maintainer bandwidth. Glad this > is in the opener. > > > +which portions of a contribution come from humans versus tools is > > +critical to maintain those resources and keep kernel development > > +healthy. > > Agreed entirely. > > > + > > +The goal here is to clarify community expectations around tools. This > > +lets everyone become more productive while also maintaining high > > +degrees of trust between submitters and reviewers. > > Also very good. > > > + > > +Out of Scope > > +============ > > + > > +These guidelines do not apply to tools that make trivial tweaks to > > +preexisting content. Nor do they pertain to AI tooling that helps with > > +menial tasks. Some examples: > > + > > + - Spelling and grammar fix ups, like rephrasing to imperative voice > > + - Typing aids like identifier completion, common boilerplate or > > + trivial pattern completion > > + - Purely mechanical transformations like variable renaming > > + - Reformatting, like running Lindent, ``clang-format`` or > > + ``rust-fmt`` > > + > > +Even if your tool use is out of scope you should still always consider > > +if it would help reviewing your contribution if the reviewer knows > > +about the tool that you used. > > This is great, I agree very much that we have to be reasonable about these > uses. > > The final sentence is also great. > > > + > > +In Scope > > +======== > > + > > +These guidelines apply when a meaningful amount of content in a kernel > > +contribution was not written by a person in the Signed-off-by chain, > > +but was instead created by a tool. > > Yes, perhaps useful actually using the term 'meaningful amount' rather than > trying to be absolutely explicit about what this entails. > > Also allows for maintainer discretion. > > > + > > +Detection of a problem is also a part of the development process; if a > > +tool was used to find a problem addressed by a change, that should be > > +noted in the changelog. This not only gives credit where it is due, it > > +also helps fellow developers find out about these tools. > > + > > +Some examples: > > + - Any tool-suggested fix such as ``checkpatch.pl --fix`` > > + - Coccinelle scripts > > + - A chatbot generated a new function in your patch to sort list entries. > > + - A .c file in the patch was originally generated by a LLM but cleaned > > + up by hand. > > + - The changelog was generated by handing the patch to a generative AI > > + tool and asking it to write the changelog. > > + - The changelog was translated from another language. > > + > > +If in doubt, choose transparency and assume these guidelines apply to > > +your contribution. > > Yes agreed. > > > + > > +Guidelines > > +========== > > + > > +First, read the Developer's Certificate of Origin: > > +Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst . Its rules are simple > > +and have been in place for a long time. They have covered many > > +tool-generated contributions. > > + > > +Second, when making a contribution, be transparent about the origin of > > +content in cover letters and changelogs. You can be more transparent > > +by adding information like this: > > + > > + - What tools were used? > > + - The input to the tools you used, like the coccinelle source script. > > Not sure repeatedly using coccinelle as an example is helpful, as > coccinelle is far less of an issue than LLM tooling, perhaps for the > avoidance of doubt, expand this to include references to that? > > > + - If code was largely generated from a single or short set of > > + prompts, include those prompts in the commit log. For longer > > + sessions, include a summary of the prompts and the nature of > > + resulting assistance. > > Maybe worth saying send it in a cover letter if a series, but perhaps > pedantic. > > > + - Which portions of the content were affected by that tool? > > + > > +As with all contributions, individual maintainers have discretion to > > +choose how they handle the contribution. For example, they might: > > + > > + - Treat it just like any other contribution > > + - Reject it outright > > + - Review the contribution with extra scrutiny > > + - Suggest a better prompt instead of suggesting specific code changes > > + - Ask for some other special steps, like asking the contributor to > > + elaborate on how the tool or model was trained > > + - Ask the submitter to explain in more detail about the contribution > > + so that the maintainer can feel comfortable that the submitter fully > > + understands how the code works. > > OK I wrote something suggesting you add this and you already have :) that's > great. Let me go delete that request :) > > However I'm not sure the 'as with all contributions' is right though - as a > maintainer in mm I don't actually feel that we can reject outright without > having to give significant explanation as to why. > > And I think that's often the case - people (rightly) dislike blanket NAKs > and it's a terrible practice, which often (also rightly) gets pushback from > co-maintainers or others in the community. > > So I think perhaps it'd also be useful to very explicitly say that > maintainers may say no summarily in instances where the review load would > simply be too much to handle large clearly-AI-generated and > clearly-unfiltered series. > > Another point to raise perhaps is that - even in the cases where the > submitter is carefully reviewing generated output - that submitters must be > reasonable in terms of the volume they submit. This is perhaps hand wavey > but mentioning it would be great not least for the ability for maintainers > to point at the doc and reference it. > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/index.rst > > b/Documentation/process/index.rst > > index aa12f26601949..e1a8a31389f53 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/index.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/index.rst > > @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ beyond). > > stable-kernel-rules > > management-style > > researcher-guidelines > > + generated-content > > > > Dealing with bugs > > ----------------- > > I guess this is a WIP? > > > -- > > 2.34.1 > > > > > > Thanks, Lorenzo
