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

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 05:53:14PM +0200, Eli Billauer wrote:
> On 22/07/2026 16:49, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > Eli Billauer <eli.billauer@gmail.com> 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?

Yes.  Please add something there.

thanks,

greg k-h