On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 10:58:08AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2026-01-08 at 13:56 +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 08:17:09AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Thu, 2026-01-08 at 11:56 +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > [...] > > > > + > > > > +As with the output of any tooling, > > > > > > > > > > maintainers will not tolerate 'slop' - > > > > > > Just delete this phrase (partly because it's very tied to a non- > > > standard and very recent use of the word slop, but mostly because > > > it doesn't add anything actionable to the reader). > > > > I mean I'm not expecting this to land given Linus's position :) > > > > But if removing this sentence allowed the below in sure. > > > > However personally I think it's very important to say 'slop' here. > > It's more so to make it abundantly clear that the kernel takes the > > position that we don't accept it. > > Perhaps I can help clarify. You're using the word "slop" to mean > output of tools that is actually wrong ... which can happen to any > tool, not just AI. And you want any statement to include that > explicitly. > > I'm saying anything you can't explain won't be accepted, which, I > think, necessarily includes any output the tool gets wrong. But I > don't object to saying this in a more generic form, so how about this > as the compromise > > --- > +As with the output of any tooling, > > The result can be incorrect or inappropriate so
LGTM! :) > > +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. > --- > > Regards, > > James > Cheers, Lorenzo
