Re: [External Mail] Re: [PATCH v8 1/6] net: wwan: t9xx: Add PCIe core

[Jakub Kicinski]

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.