On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 12:35:02PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 09:42:27AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > +cc Linus > > > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2025 at 03:57:58PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > This patch series adds unified configuration and documentation for coding > > > agents working with the Linux kernel codebase. As coding agents > > > become increasingly common in software development, it's important to > > > establish clear guidelines for their use in kernel development. > > > > Hi Sasha, > > > > I feel like we need to take a step back here and consider some of the > > non-technical consqeuences of this change. > > > > Firstly, there is no doubt whatsoever that, were this series to land, there > > would be significant press which would amount to (whether you like it or > > not) 'Linux kernel welcomes AI patches'. > > > > I don't feel that a change of this magnitude which is likely to have this > > kind of impact should be RFC'd quietly and then, after a weekend, submitted > > ready to merge. > > > > This change, whether you like it or not - amounts to (or at the very least, > > certainly will be perceived to be) kernel policy. And, AFAIK, we don't have > > an AI kernel policy doc yet. > > > > 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". > > > - This should be discussed at the maintainers summit before proceeding. > > Sounds reasonable as well. > > 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. > > > 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? We do, but isn't .editorconfig a vendor-neutral solution ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
