Re: [PATCH] tpm: Use named initializers for arrays of i2c_device_data

Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-integrity,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <ahP3V5viwMtnH9PC@monoceros>
Hello Jarkko,

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 03:44:05PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 10:16:39AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König (The Capable Hub) wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 12:43:23AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Clean up can be side-effect but not a purpose.
> > 
> > Oh, I disagree. Having code in a state where you can easily see what
> > happens helps to concentrate on the parts that are more complicated. So
> > it's a win for maintenance and lowering the entry bar for people who are
> > not used to Linux kernel code. There are parts in the kernel that are
> > complicated, and we won't get rid of them, because operating systems are
> > complicated. But my POV here is that making it easier where it's
> > possible is a good thing and a reason for itself. You might call that a
> > paper cut only, but these add up.
> > 
> > Also with the union in i2c_device_id the compiler warns you if some code
> > is lacking a "const". So it becomes harder to make mistakes, this is
> > also a reason that in my book is good enough for itself.
> 
> Actually what I said is more important than ever before given AI agents.
> 
> If I start to accept pure cleanups from humans it's like invitiation for
> slop. This is actually an area where it would be advicable for any
> maintainer to tighten the acceptance criteria.

I also disagree here. If a patch improves something (be it security,
runtime behaviour or maintainability) that should be reason enough to
accept it. If it's created by AI (or a by a newbie with the help of AI)
that's a reason to make sure the patch has the intended effect, but
that's essentially the same for any patch.

I agree that AI might get problematic if it floods maintainers and
effectively becomes a DOS attack to maintainer resources. But that
doesn't necessarily makes the patches it proposes bad.

Best regards
Uwe
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 488 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEP4GsaTp6HlmJrf7Tj4D7WH0S/k4FAmoT+aoACgkQj4D7WH0S
/k55kAf/WirBb5saUL7Ev1pLCl0q58GbEQKdqUbGyrvbSGc8cYglVsjopgwdVjFp
ymNsegq7ZumAxs1QumcIGgBgJTXh4eKCr9zk1FHJFQRoTQuXoEbTwXjgXsXlz43J
P48HBaRfkRQtMIAuvnhE8pfEW7KJIABItUfU+kigDHRHTqXJ3TscK+b8MosASlKa
Ov+7gbB4C8G68C0+TWv7gF/6rOqDERrUyC4DxbODXEN4GJubP4IXA3JyhZBAGrb8
gNxvnxN6OilwrQdTwoBLLUy/mrVsO/yu/R3a49aAa1EBlQrHPeLCoJ0YfoCe5MY/
Oj9A1we/OkHpCZteDY4mRxrhwhBtaw==
=Y5x4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.