Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 03:48:14PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 08:17:09AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > +you are expected to understand and to be able to defend everything
> > > > you
> > > > +submit. If you are unable to do so, maintainers may choose to reject
> > > > your
> > > > +series outright.
> > >
> > > And I thing the addition would apply to any tool used to generate a
> > > patch set whether AI or not.
> >
> > Exactly. I saw my share of "fix checkpatch warning" slop. This is no
> > different.
> 
> I guess that most maintainers can easily recognize a patch that was
> motivated by checkpatch, Coccinelle, smatch etc.  Then the review can be
> informed by previous experience with the tool.  Will the same be the case
> for AI?  Or does it not matter?
> 
> julia

It is not the issue that checkpatch motivated something. The issue is
that a lot of people don't understand that "checkpatch complained" is
not motivation enough to make a change. I expect this holds for all
tools.

-- 
MST