On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 12:35:02PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > So to me: > > > > - We should establish an official kernel AI policy document. > > Steven Rostedt is working on this right now, hopefully he has something > "soon". Great! Thanks for looking at that Steve. I think a key element here has to be maintainer opt-in. > > > - This should be discussed at the maintainers summit before proceeding. > > Sounds reasonable as well. Thanks. > > But I think that Kees and my earlier points of "the documentation should > be all that an agent needs" might aleviate many of these concerns, if > our documentation can be tweaked in a way to make it easier for > everyone, humans and bots, to understand. That should cut down on the > "size" of this patch series a lot overall. That'd be ideal, but I think either way we need to be clear to the humans running these things what the rules are. One thing to note is that I struggled to get an LLM to read MAINTAINERS properly recently (it assured me, with absolute confidence, that the SLAB ALLOCATOR section was in fact 'SLAB ALLOCATORS' + provided me with completely incorrect contents, and told me that if I didn't believe it I should go check :) So at all times I think ensuring the human element is aware that they need to do some kind of checking/filtering is key. But that can be handled by a carefully worded policy document. > > > In addition, it's concerning that we're explicitly adding configs for > > specific, commercial, products. This might be seen as an endorsement > > whether intended or not. > > Don't we already have that for a few things already, like .editorconfig? Right, but I think it's a whole other level when it's a subscription service. I realise we have to be practical, but it's just something to be aware of. Perhaps an entry in the AI doc along the lines of 'provision of configuration for a service is not advocating for that service, it is simply provided for convenience' or similar might help. Thanks, Lorenzo
