From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 F04224399F2; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 20:23:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790022206; cv=none; b=Mncmm/6dHtGKjvd5a732QguzpjZIRwOvtQGi00jAmWvD5v2iczFI/2TJ+CtUKeDKYQnUwja8BHSAD0psQMnPz6EhhNrqOAOaMOSGOW6IHZ/mkM3fo6trXfc3VyuwKRedtnadBKkmi5xsiuY/c6jrKcnpe0+2RwUcjoIVJd1ATXI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790022206; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VYOTwb66gU+4oJxF+oncxRA9TZFHjb7Mvd0bybKM5ck=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qzV+owtziXbXmwaF0YvUWolxYyuCC6d+o3LwXCf2ceyH1/iDnPBRVKWd/znixC6XZfA7kT+u2jtEyq9GPmYrTFZ7ylNTQ5HQBuKTBr4xRdBT2Yg2WjhSG03qn0XgTPGkonup6cqLn/UljsAdfLblSZkI6uk68W1MSQCdI7V3UME= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mkSvno16; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mkSvno16" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7A411F000FF; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 20:23:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790022204; bh=EuIYaACFfYHQrqG9qgcFjCKehJqKFbN314wuAG+MnDA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=mkSvno16N/KbJGqH9JJZG3oUqniaYsWHOFiSd9ghPUELNVKurBiKi3yJDjkAbLoRD xGKOhi//72HswvsfOg1UO9UzNxVoOgyxDGA09uczWblOpvKqhNwVzKtE4Nmg7q8Alq oJJdF3xhwK2GNG/oiFS+mklEUQB4Nl9i5O362wvz7KzhGYn4cGHMJqhOvsAUxpmejw dF2Pl8nHmPWHq0/TTbk0nJYkY3n5GTnap8fnt9gJoyy/8oIWJW5OMFDhmOMgDcUm9d 8muczurGCO4jezT8YoOO6RqoACBvBu+HF+ws0+K52hrf/oCE/kEx9EPpGJno1pMcOB 4xz92dZYnAW4Q== Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 13:23:23 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: "Wu. JackBB (GSM)" Cc: Loic Poulain , Sergey Ryazanov , Johannes Berg , "Andrew Lunn" , "David S. Miller" , "Eric Dumazet" , Paolo Abeni , Wen-Zhi Huang , Shi-Wei Yeh , "Minano Tseng" , Matthias Brugger , AngeloGioacchino Del Regno , "Simon Horman" , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , "Yu. Robert (GSM)" , "Chang. Jeff (GSM)" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [External Mail] Re: [PATCH v8 1/6] net: wwan: t9xx: Add PCIe core Message-ID: <20260921132323.7e6f76d3@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <690e3d6d04ba47efba2b4cda7b18e42e@compal.com> References: <20260914-t9xx_driver_v1-v8-0-5206c2e6bea0@compal.com> <20260914-t9xx_driver_v1-v8-1-5206c2e6bea0@compal.com> <20260919165434.08d026a8@kernel.org> <690e3d6d04ba47efba2b4cda7b18e42e@compal.com> 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 On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 07:06:23 +0000 Wu. JackBB (GSM) wrote: > Two questions on the prompts document. > > Are the following hard requirements the series has to meet, or targets > for the tool? Targets for the LLM but also these are describing a high quality submission in general. > - line 44: "Ideal patches are between 200 and 700 LoC (added + > removed, not counting context)." > - line 46: "Avoid series larger than 2.5k LoC. The first series is > usually larger, but must not exceed 4k LoC." > - lines 57-58: "Series 1 should aim to add the simplest possible > version of the driver which nonetheless can send and receive a > trivial (no offloads) packet." > - line 117: "Avoid the use of managed APIs (``devm_``, ``pcim_``)." > > On the packet one: this series carries no netdev because an earlier > review found the driver too large to submit at once, so the network > functionality was split into follow-up series. That's fine. > The document also asks for no defensive checks (lines 119-120) and few > code comments (line 124). That runs against the direction of the AI review > we have been getting, where both have been growing. Is the current > direction still fine? The kernel coding guide has not changed, defensive checks are still discouraged. If AI is suggesting checks that can't trigger just comment on the review or add a comment / WARN to the code to mark the condition as impossible.