On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 03:48:14PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2026, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 08:17:09AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > +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. > > > > > > And I thing the addition would apply to any tool used to generate a > > > patch set whether AI or not. > > > > Exactly. I saw my share of "fix checkpatch warning" slop. This is no > > different. > > I guess that most maintainers can easily recognize a patch that was > motivated by checkpatch, Coccinelle, smatch etc. Then the review can be > informed by previous experience with the tool. Will the same be the case > for AI? Or does it not matter? > > julia
It is not the issue that checkpatch motivated something. The issue is that a lot of people don't understand that "checkpatch complained" is not motivation enough to make a change. I expect this holds for all tools. -- MST
