On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 12:51:05PM -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. > > 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 by > 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]> > Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Miguel Ojeda <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: SeongJae Park <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> > Cc: NeilBrown <[email protected]> > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]> > Cc: Dan Williams <[email protected]> > Cc: Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]> > Cc: Sasha Levin <[email protected]> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]
The "Ask for some other special steps, like asking the contributor to elaborate on how the tool or model was trained" covers my copyright concerns, so: Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> > -- > > There has been a ton of feedback since v2. Thanks everyone! I've > tried to respect all of the feedback, but some of it has been > contradictory and I haven't been able to incorporate everything. > > Please speak up if I missed something important here. > > Changes from v2: > * Mention testing (Shuah) > * Remove "very", rename LLM => coding assistant (Dan) > * More formatting sprucing up and minor typos (Miguel) > * Make changelog and text less flashy (Christian) > * Tone down critical=>helpful (Neil) > * Wording/formatting tweaks (Randy) > > 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) > > This document was a collaborative effort from all the members of > the TAB. I just reformatted it into .rst and wrote the changelog. > --- > Documentation/process/generated-content.rst | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++ > Documentation/process/index.rst | 1 + > 2 files changed, 98 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 000000000000..917d6e93c66d > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst > @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ > +============================================ > +Kernel Guidelines for Tool-Generated Content > +============================================ > + > +Purpose > +======= > + > +Kernel contributors have been using tooling to generate contributions > +for a long time. These tools can increase the volume of contributions. > +At the same time, reviewer and maintainer bandwidth is a scarce > +resource. Understanding which portions of a contribution come from > +humans versus tools is helpful 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 > + - 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 and testing the fix for it is also 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 coding > + assistant 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. Ensure that you understand your entire > +submission and are prepared to respond to review comments. > + > +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. 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? > + - How is the submission tested and what tools were used to test the > + fix? > + > +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. > + - Treat the contribution specially like reviewing with extra scrutiny, > + or at a lower priority than human-generated content. > + - 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 aa12f2660194..e1a8a31389f5 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 > ----------------- > -- > 2.34.1 > >
