From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CE3E285C91; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:32:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759933958; cv=none; b=Isg6ZoTG4aAXTMFqE27nYwscAt5qvkXGVgrZ+kS/B9Qb/EkpMN/seYfU0u52rQ4b/JnoWV1c6q3Bo7fu1B1Pk4VqjdBhAaLwUy0cZn5htK0BHqrYwuJCIGYm/LiDY/4hyq2oX68RXAtwwN6sX758ugKFNYIz1/MrintVsN5b42w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759933958; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bB2GY1p9i6Et5/DYb+voLea94rf8Su1E0TtKQKVgfIM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=vFYNTUFqVzkQoKvha7et39uZtaf4aHxa7BHPK0xPtMqukPFQ+jG4r7pAHBQpy64kCz4441IFqXs+ju2cMXxLvAVxKEiZt+f90TpDtaOXbpfXwIwkqXz9pG0tA9idD85/TOAtzMwzAMMwpcWUp72jGcB1bsCBIjwoJzvUDbEh72k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=goodmis.org Received: from omf18.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275F6C0402; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:32:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: rostedt@goodmis.org) by omf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E4FA92E; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 14:32:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:34:22 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Juri Lelli , Peter Zijlstra , tj@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, vschneid@redhat.com, longman@redhat.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mkoutny@suse.com, void@manifault.com, arighi@nvidia.com, changwoo@igalia.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, sched-ext@lists.linux.dev, liuwenfang@honor.com, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] sched: Add locking comments to sched_class methods Message-ID: <20251008103422.030756d3@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <2025100838-undermine-zit-83b6@gregkh> References: <20251006104402.946760805@infradead.org> <20251006104527.694841522@infradead.org> <20251008070419.GR4067720@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> <2025100822-drained-foe-2426@gregkh> <2025100838-undermine-zit-83b6@gregkh> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.20.0git84 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: E4FA92E X-Stat-Signature: ex6t73qw67kn4itbf7aws4rryykpr1ba X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout02 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX18eyYKG2i5h4+nTHEgGSR5FxTO9ucKkG00= X-HE-Tag: 1759933948-698019 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX19PYnlTLf9h5QpVxK49NxZzOAbOahTE88ot8JsSOzE9V4FiU93go8FUqsx9qnE1fxykgmLP69yUztsioxFqmL2LZlct/S7d3i0YJOoKpAq1Ppnwp9V+Tr8HQT5ay9m2fMHF3D40kkRCG0xU5jV0WGItZDJl8VOmsg0UmbqBUIsbLghKS9kelGho0vtyPLk9Xb8bN0huoXdU8JHzT7OJlWY1zryUwhdwxCP8zhtOVzE8f17/ulw8iWPxjuH9Ky3GJst4e8vtIAS2srbF4UG+1hTNJ9PpqutIxZ9Jmu9A9r5dSfIWRrmw5TT646rIQl7LLnv1GR6GXvPBBIAEjWFhZ7Y/bbidqwYUWmhCbaGc9gJSBxTtCtHB3PgU On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 12:06:56 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > The general answer is "you better know the copyright ownership > information of the output of the tool you use" before you do anything > with any of these tools. Be careful about this, because adding your > signed-off-by to a patch like makes it your responsibility :) And there are a lot of copyright battles going on in courts wrt AI right now. It's best to see how that plays out too. > > After that, treat it like any other tool that you use to generate a > patch, document what you used and why/how, and you should be fine. You > have to do this today if you were to use any type of tool, so in that > way, "AI" is no different, with the exception of the ownership of the > output result (again, consult the terms of the tool used.) > > Hopefully documentation updates to our process documents will reflect > this in the near future. Yeah, I need to help Dave on that too. Thanks for the reminder, -- Steve