Merge branches 'expcb.2026.07.24a', 'misc.2026.07.30a', 'rcu-tasks.2026.07.30a', 'srcu.2026.08.11a' and 'torture.2026.08.14a' into HEADgrafted

Changes:

Make expedited grace periods expedite normal RCU callbacks

Miscellaneous fixes:
 * Improve diagnostic output with character task states.
 * Mark accesses to inform KCSAN of concurrency design.
 * Move from kmalloc() to kmalloc_obj().
 * Documentation updates.
 * Improve handling of RCU deferred quiescent states.
 * Clean up unused function arguments and structure fields.
 * Reduce show_rcu_gp_kthreads() stack space.

Tasks RCU updates:
 * Clean up after SRCU re-implementation of Tasks Trace RCU.
 * Mark accesses to inform KCSAN of concurrency design.
 * Add ->lazy_timer status to diagnostic output.
 * Remove an unnecessary memory barrier.
 * Fix a data race, courtesy of KCSAN.
 * Documentation updates.
 * Convert cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs() from macro to static inline
   function.

SRCU updates:
 * Add Rust helpers for SRCU.
 * Avoid losing queued work at cleanup_srcu_struct() time.

Torture-test updates:
 * Preparation work for immediate RCU priority deboosting.
 * Test RCU readers from real interrupt handlers (as opposed to softirq).
 * Simplify code through use of cpumask_next_wrap().
 * Improve diagnostic output with character task states.
 * Add rcutorture.nwriters parameter to allow lightweight stall testing,
   and rcutorture.stall_only to make doing so easier.
 * Test an RCU Tasks Trace grace period implying an RCU grace period.
 * Make RCU Tasks Trace torturing track reader batches.
 * Fix a data race, courtesy of KCSAN.
 * Plug a shuffle_tmp_mask memory leak on kthread spawn failure.

1 files changed, 109 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..08621e50a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+============================================
+Kernel Guidelines for Tool-Generated Content
+============================================
+
+Purpose
+=======
+
+Kernel contributors have been using tooling to generate contributions
+for a long time. These tools can increase the volume of contributions.
+At the same time, reviewer and maintainer bandwidth is a scarce
+resource. Understanding which portions of a contribution come from
+humans versus tools is helpful to maintain those resources and keep
+kernel development healthy.
+
+The goal here is to clarify community expectations around tools. This
+lets everyone become more productive while also maintaining high
+degrees of trust between submitters and reviewers.
+
+Out of Scope
+============
+
+These guidelines do not apply to tools that make trivial tweaks to
+preexisting content. Nor do they pertain to tooling that helps with
+menial tasks. Some examples:
+
+ - Spelling and grammar fix ups, like rephrasing to imperative voice
+ - Typing aids like identifier completion, common boilerplate or
+   trivial pattern completion
+ - Purely mechanical transformations like variable renaming
+ - Reformatting, like running Lindent, ``clang-format`` or
+   ``rust-fmt``
+
+Even whenever your tool use is out of scope, you should still always
+consider if it would help reviewing your contribution if the reviewer
+knows about the tool that you used.
+
+In Scope
+========
+
+These guidelines apply when a meaningful amount of content in a kernel
+contribution was not written by a person in the Signed-off-by chain,
+but was instead created by a tool.
+
+Detection of a problem and testing the fix for it is also part of the
+development process; if a tool was used to find a problem addressed by
+a change, that should be noted in the changelog. This not only gives
+credit where it is due, it also helps fellow developers find out about
+these tools.
+
+Some examples:
+ - Any tool-suggested fix such as ``checkpatch.pl --fix``
+ - Coccinelle scripts
+ - A chatbot generated a new function in your patch to sort list entries.
+ - A .c file in the patch was originally generated by a coding
+   assistant but cleaned up by hand.
+ - The changelog was generated by handing the patch to a generative AI
+   tool and asking it to write the changelog.
+ - The changelog was translated from another language.
+
+If in doubt, choose transparency and assume these guidelines apply to
+your contribution.
+
+Guidelines
+==========
+
+First, read the Developer's Certificate of Origin:
+Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Its rules are simple
+and have been in place for a long time. They have covered many
+tool-generated contributions. Ensure that you understand your entire
+submission and are prepared to respond to review comments.
+
+Second, when making a contribution, be transparent about the origin of
+content in cover letters and changelogs. You can be more transparent
+by adding information like this:
+
+ - What tools were used?
+ - The input to the tools you used, like the Coccinelle source script.
+ - If code was largely generated from a single or short set of
+   prompts, include those prompts. For longer sessions, include a
+   summary of the prompts and the nature of resulting assistance.
+ - Which portions of the content were affected by that tool?
+ - How is the submission tested and what tools were used to test the
+   fix?
+
+As with all contributions, individual maintainers have discretion to
+choose how they handle the contribution. For example, they might:
+
+ - Treat it just like any other contribution.
+ - Reject it outright.
+ - Treat the contribution specially, for example, asking for extra
+   testing, reviewing with extra scrutiny, or reviewing at a lower
+   priority than human-generated content.
+ - Ask for some other special steps, like asking the contributor to
+   elaborate on how the tool or model was trained.
+ - Ask the submitter to explain in more detail about the contribution
+   so that the maintainer can be assured that the submitter fully
+   understands how the code works.
+ - Suggest a better prompt instead of suggesting specific code changes.
+
+If tools permit you to generate a contribution automatically, expect
+additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated.
+
+As with the output of any tooling, the result may be incorrect or
+inappropriate. You are expected to understand and to be able to defend
+everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, then do not submit
+the resulting changes.
+
+If you do so anyway, maintainers are entitled to reject your series
+without detailed review.