On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 10:18:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Was AI used for any part of this patch? Including finding the bug? If
> so, it must be disclosed.
Yes, AI was used. Claude (claude-opus-4-7) assisted in both finding
the bug and drafting the fix. I reviewed the analysis and took
responsibility for the submission, but I should have disclosed this
up front per Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst. I
apologize for the oversight, and I will add an
Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4-7 tag in the follow-up.
> Just move guard(rcu) out of this if statement to include the below
> reference. No need to make the code worse. This really looks like
> AI slop :-(
You are right. Hoisting guard(rcu)() to the top of the
if (tr->trace_flags & TRACE_ITER(PROF_TEXT_OFFSET)) {
block so its scope covers the single snprintf() after the if/else is
the correct fix -- +1/-1, net zero, instead of duplicating snprintf()
into both branches as I did. I should have recognized this instead of
submitting the first plausible-looking approach.
I will send a follow-up patch that restores the single snprintf()
after the if/else and hoists guard(rcu)() to cover it, with the
Subject capitalized ("ftrace: Fix ...") and
Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4-7 added.
Thanks for the review and for pushing back on the approach.
Xiang
