On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 09:58:52AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 08:43:06AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > +Cc ksummit (where the discussions about this topic happened recently) and > > workflows (probably the closest list we have for such things in general) > > because nobody reads lkml today and this seems to have been going under the > > radar until mentioned at lwn yesterday > > > > On 11/6/25 00:15, 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. > > This reads like a factual statement about "impressiveness" of the tools. > Just drop that sentence, please. It doesn't add value to the commit > message at all. > > > > Add new Documentation to guide contributors on how to > > > best use kernel development tools, new and old. > > > > > > Note, though, there are fundamentally no new or unique rules in this > > > new document. It clarifies expectations that the kernel community has > > > 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. > > > > > > In short: Please show your work and make sure your contribution is > > > easy to review. > > > > > > 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 > > "undoubtedly improve developer productivity"? > Am I reading an advert or kernel documentation about the policy how to > use new tooling? > > Please keep it factual without statements about what perceived value > this adds. People use it and we have to have a policy for it. There's no > need to celebrate it. > > > > +and maintainer bandwidth is a very scarce resource. Understanding > > > +which portions of a contribution come from humans versus tools is > > > +critical to maintain those resources and keep kernel development > > > +healthy. > > > + > > > +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. > > > + > > > +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
Mechanical transformations are often performed with Coccinelle. Given how you mention that tool below, I wouldn't frame it as out of scope here. > > > + - 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. > > > + > > > +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. > > > + > > > +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. > > > + > > > +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. > > > + - 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. > > > + - 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. > > > 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 > > > ----------------- -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
