From 9cc63f8bcd560c760d0b12e15bba8f81c86237cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 15:43:51 -0700 Subject: 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 HEAD 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. --- Documentation/process/generated-content.rst | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 109 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/process/generated-content.rst (limited to 'Documentation/process/generated-content.rst') 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. -- cgit v1.3.1