Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] char: xillybus: Harden driver and improve code quality

[Eli Billauer]

On 22/07/2026 16:49, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Eli Billauer <eli.billauer@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > This patch set consists of several boundary and sanity checks, gaining
> > better control of execution flow and fixing minor coding issues. No
> > difference is expected in the driver's behavior under normal conditions,
> > except for one change that might improve bandwidth performance
> > marginally.
> >
> > These patches are the result of a comprehensive AI-assisted code review,
> > using Deepseek, Kimi Thinking K2.6, ChatGPT, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 as
> > plain prompt tools.
>
> So it would seem that they need Assisted-by tags?

Frankly speaking, I don't know. And I'll explain the dilemma:

As I wrote in the v1 cover letter (and removed for v2, which I perhaps 
shouldn't have done), my work with the AI tools was what I call a 
"reverse rubber duck" session: the AI tools told me what they considered 
to be a bug, and my job was to convince the rubber duck that it was 
wrong. And this went on for three weeks.

In a few cases, the rubber duck actually had a point. In most cases, it 
merely got me to pay attention to things I didn't notice before. And the 
actual corrections were written by me: the suggestions made by AI were a 
long way from being usable.

I understand that Assisted-by tags are intended to keep track of how AI 
is used for contributing to the Linux kernel. But I'm not sure my case 
is what this tag was meant for. Plus, as this went on for quite a while, 
I don't have a record of which tool contributed to which patch. So 
mention all four for all patches?

So I'll have to bounce the question back: Is the Assisted-by tag 
suitable when AI acts as a rubber duck?

Thanks and regards,
   Eli