On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 07:54:31AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 08:29:58AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 04:04:39PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > > > * Jens Axboe <[email protected]> [260108 15:54]: > > > > On 1/8/26 12:23 PM, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > > >> @@ -95,3 +95,8 @@ choose how they handle the contribution. For > > > > >> example, they might: > > > > >> - 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. > > > > >> + > > > > >> +Finally, always be prepared for tooling that produces incorrect or > > > > >> +inappropriate content. Make sure you 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. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I feel like this formulation waters it down so much as to lose the > > > > > emphasis > > > > > which was the entire point of it. > > > > > > > > > > I'm also not sure why we're losing the scrutiny part? > > > > > > > > > > Something like: > > > > > > > > > > +If tools permit you to generate series entirely automatically, expect > > > > > +additional scrutiny. > > > > > + > > > > > +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, maintainers may > > > > > choose > > > > > +to reject your series outright. > > > > > > > > Eh, why not some variant of: > > > > > > > > "If you are unable to do so, then don't submit the resulting changes." > > > > > > > > Talking only for myself, I have ZERO interest in receiving code from > > > > someone that doesn't even understand what it does. And it'd be better to > > > > NOT waste my or anyone elses time if that's the level of the submission. > > > > > > Yes, agreed. > > > > > > > Yeah. Me too. > > > > > If I cannot understand it and the author is clueless about the patch, > > > then I'm going to be way more grumpy than the wording of that statement. > > > > > > I'd assume the submitter would just get the ai to answer it anyways > > > since that's fitting with the level of the submission. > > > > Yes. That has happened to me. I asked the submitter how do you know > > this is true? And the v2 had a long AI generated explanation which quoted > > a spec from an AI hallucination. > > > > I like Dave's document but the first paragraph should be to not send AI > > slop. > > This is the entire point of my push back here :) > > I'd prefer us to be truly emphatic with a 'NO SLOP PLEASE' as the opener and > using that term, but I'm compromising because... well you saw Linus's position > right?
I just don't think the word "slop" should be used, because while it may be very clear to you, and may be clearly defined in some communities, me, I'm just guessing what you mean by it.
