Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent coding assistant configuration to Linux kernel

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

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