On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 15:48:49 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 10:39:24AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 11:25:57 +0000 > > Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't really read that as grumpy, I understand wanting to be > > > > > agreeable > > > > > but sometimes it's appropriate to be emphatic, which is the entire > > > > > purpose > > > > > of this amendment. > > > > > > > > > > Taking into account Jens's input too: > > > > > > > > > > +If tools permit you to generate series automatically, expect > > > > > +additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated. > > > > > + > > > > > +As with the output of any tooling, the result maybe incorrect or > > > > > +inappropriate, so you are expected to understand and to be able to > > > > > defend > > > > > +everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, then don't submit > > > > > the > > > > > +resulting changes. > > > > > + > > > > > +If you do so anyway, maintainers are entitled to reject your series > > > > > without > > > > > +detailed review. > > > > I like it. > > Hmm, you like my version but then below argue against every point I make in > favour of it? I'm confused? I don't see how it's contradictory to what I expressed later. > > Did you mean to say you liked a suggested other revision or... really this > one? :) I like this one, as it relates to any automated tooling (checkpatch and coccinelle too, not just AI). Because I do believe this is documenting exactly what we do today and have been doing for years. I always scrutinize tooling more than when someone wrote it. Because using tooling myself, there's always that strange corner case that causes the tooling to do something you didn't expect. Whereas humans usually make the mistakes that you do expect ;-) > > If so and Dave likes it too then LGTM, pending any Linus/other veto. > > For the rest of your email - a lawyer would say 'asked and answered'. I've > responded to every point of yours there about 3 times apiece across the > thread and I don't think it's a good use of time to loop around on things! I believe that you think I disagree more than what I actually do disagree with ;-) -- Steve
