Re: [PATCH] [v3] Documentation: Provide guidelines for tool-generated content

[Sasha Levin]

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".

> +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?

--
Thanks,
Sasha