On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 11:42:49AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 11:56:19AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst > > b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst > > index 917d6e93c66d..1423ed9d971d 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst > > @@ -95,3 +95,11 @@ 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. > > + > > +If tools permit you to generate series entirely automatically, expect > > +additional scrutiny. > > + > > +As with the output of any tooling, maintainers will not tolerate 'slop' - > > Could you define what "slop" in the context of a kernel patch means? Clearly > it's not just innocent error, but it's not clear to me what line needs to be > crossed for a mistake to turn into "slop".
I accepted James's suggested alternative in this thread. > > > +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. > > We already have something like this in Documentation/process/howto.rst: > > "Before making any actual modifications to the Linux kernel code, it is > imperative to understand how the code in question works." > > I suppose that we can restate the same here, but whats the purpose? to put it > in front of whatever media outlets might be looking? I feel I've already addressed this in the thread. > > -- > Thanks, > Sasha Thanks, Lorenzo
