On Sat, 16 May 2026 17:45:51 +0200
Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I’m not attached to any specific form of it, I thought Reviewed-by is the
> > most obvious form.
> > And we use Reported-by: tags with various tooling for years.
>
> Reported-by: shows the existance of a problem that some tool found, a
> subtle difference here.
I'd say that, if an issue was found after a patch is merged,
I don't see why to distinguish. I mean:
if tool or a bot XYZ found a real issue, and a patch fixes it,
reported-by applies - being a LLM tool/bot or not.
Now, if someone sends a patch series v1, get a bot report and send a
v2 of the same patch series due to some CI/bot/LLM/... feedback, IMO
the right approach is to mention it on patch 0, just like we do with
any other feedback. Eventually, if such feedback is more relevant, it
can be also be mentioned inside patch description(s).
That's said, I would be fine with either a free text mention or with
some tag.
If one wants/needs to justify if/why some tool is relevant for kernel
development, a simple grep would be enough:
$ git log|grep -i coverity|wc -l
4267
$ git log|grep -i smatch|wc -l
13140
$ git log|grep -i sashiko |wc -l
138
IMO, there's no need for an special tag.
Thanks,
Mauro
