From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) (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 3F38328853D for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 13:57:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755007078; cv=none; b=b6pf9SWx0aWGfe9zc7735xs5O6oFYsXptceXfoRgSOhFScPLSq9jvgGx1Ge0I3z1Ut3VYfXhynfGeODBfWSZ+7ybNPs4vczAfUa1t/W3KGbIB9LtPgy4xGdJf+cAXLNIAOlFkpMzgm2f22hBJuxCd5cbBU1XYN1xts7qPReU5RE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755007078; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1wwKnloEX/akku0dp1/+zF2ZSkiLCB/patSD56Epevk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RSyfujfsWIV6otXz1gF4cLyTEGVy318xRCN6WoGe2PIlcY7MEtBqdLGFEAGa3Qtf1diPPI4yJ7BdOQ0FRaUBqCjg6LQ0dBCkWedNSESgYUnpScMiTYa1WzdnEcuNaVQf6P9lGt/w4H5BWeFTe1LZjkeyiiO88C48HWmjVJWhVoY= 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=216.40.44.17 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 omf10.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7865871B; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 13:50:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: rostedt@goodmis.org) by omf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8EB6132; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 13:49:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 09:50:43 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: James Bottomley Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] The role of AI and LLMs in the kernel process Message-ID: <20250812095043.4def29d0@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <2da83ff9881bef84a742c06e502c91178a78a8a3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <56e85d392471beea3322d19bde368920ba6323b6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <2da83ff9881bef84a742c06e502c91178a78a8a3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.20.0git84 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8EB6132 X-Stat-Signature: w5tn66u14qs5bpyum1f8p3auxurmkkoj X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout06 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX1/yH0N0LPGB2ddkbxBOPBBd7JW7JPbmnkM= X-HE-Tag: 1755006598-379381 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX194Lms3uO6M2GrspoEy0UraQK6NJgLjkYPyZYAVX+bBP+qvVLTavrCUEqH1Blf8jIKKlPGejEQaVy2iu0NctFgDOIvQ5KDyu1QUrd2+xpTi7iI/YnAwmu9S08JQSlyWnC9ti6nBw86GmPecduZZFNdYslS7XT9xzgiZuJ3TBrLFEin4qbqk9piR9NBBSV1ozC87QdHI3vsfYcKhN/5zQbXJ4JGIDkin7PTG6Xke9ifZhytcJShC58Qqs5RE/2az7ngm8saFvLzWJJ4Mw0e1k16EPLHR3aMq7aMx1+0JCvjAOhvL4AZSmmhyept+Ah8Z/1PnF8evJVZXClxVydmEq8njTtbCNeZV+xpuqgxNMqjJE4JrvKyLI7k1OO4lnek+ClP0djHa3mzy/k5XNm+Nw+kx On Tue, 05 Aug 2025 14:34:40 -0400 James Bottomley wrote: > > Sure - Steven encountered this in [1]. > >=20 > > As he says there: > >=20 > > "If I had known, I would have examined the patch a little more > > thoroughly, =C2=A0and would have discovered a very minor mistake in the > > patch." =20 >=20 > Heh, well now you make me look it seems that the minor mistake is > adding at tail instead of head? That seems to be because the hash list > API doesn't have a head add ... >=20 > I wouldn't really call that a subtle problem because the LLM would have > picked up the head to tail conversion if we'd had an at head API for it > to learn from. That wasn't the minor mistake I was referring to. The mistake was that it dropped a __read_mostly annotation. Which after further review, was actually OK and something that should have been done in a separate patch. I have other tags that are required for alignment and such otherwise things may break mysteriously. It could easily have dropped a different tag that would have made a difference. The point here is that it most definitely will introduce very subtle mistakes. More subtle than what a human may produce and much harder to spot. -- Steve