On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 10:20:44AM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
Dan Carpenter wrote:
[..]
If tools permit you to generate a contribution automatically, expect
additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated.
Every kernel patch needs careful review from multiple people. Please,
don't start the public review process until after you have carefully
reviewed the patches yourself. If you don't have the necessary
expertise to review kernel code, consider asking for help first before
sending them to the main list.
Note, I do not want additional changes to this document, my Reviewed-by
still stands with this version, it is good, ship it.
However, I do want to endorse this sentiment as uniquely capturing a
truism of kernel development that perhaps belongs in
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. It captures it in a way
that avoids the conceit of the "slop is special" argument.
Contributions are accepted in large part based in trust in the author.
So much so that even long time contributors self censor, self mistrust,
based on the adage "debugging is harder than developing, if you develop
at the limits of your cleverness you will not be able to debug the
result." Tools potentially allow you to develop beyond the limits of
your own cleverness which implicates the result as "undebuggable" and
unmaintainable.
So a simple rule of "generally you should be able to demonstrate the
ability to substantively review a contribution of similar complexity
before expecting the kernel community to engage in earnest" mitigates
the asymmetric threat of AI contributions *and* contributors that have
not built-up enough trust capital with their upstream maintainer.
Looking at recent history (v6.12..v6.18) we had 1902 authors (a third of
overall contributors) who contributed a single commit. Out of those 1902, only
177 have a Reviewed-by tag pointing to them.
With a rule like the above, 1700+ contributors would have not been able to send
their patch in.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
