From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) (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 7732E2F548D for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:18:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755008324; cv=none; b=uiaQjoQOIpSa9Z6WusUZCQIR3jFFkvi9R7tocH3iZn5MQq1VRPIc1x0gygsbDVYsWBdDY+sKLkn6/9lHf6VGZeaYELxefvNMuL5tsHA+lUy6NKyL5w+W8YZYd6r4v+DH+s5Jrqs3pjqn3KLj+0gu2aJst+oSHTHIdbeA/CxKvpY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755008324; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6uv7jEbtdCPVYj1ZCLNqwKC5Dox9Z8fy6+deay5UFEE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Yzs5wOyX7x8A7uZcvzugeGQFczsmCTbogUKLkOO3INAQiMrWt7DYc1XTrYg9mGutlPOhoYGrXJVhbjjh6IlwQ+YU6YD5wKKHN0d8+Z5jbAc5UdsCdQoCGuHqVU8Bk/8mtxDWKsymBJJPppodIejKFujcjDgzhPEQON9NGAb7MVo= 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=216.40.44.10 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 omf16.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E0114012E; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: rostedt@goodmis.org) by omf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5F68C20019; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:18:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 10:19:23 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Mark Brown , James Bottomley , Sasha Levin , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] The role of AI and LLMs in the kernel process Message-ID: <20250812101923.2797494f@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <2e90677a-4a0b-40fb-9428-e80eacf034fd@lucifer.local> References: <56e85d392471beea3322d19bde368920ba6323b6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1ced158f-b433-46ef-a70f-d035ec413a12@lucifer.local> <72ee0f61379054e327d502bbe77aae3d76966d17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <8b7daa48-0f79-4948-b0de-a09a7b456513@sirena.org.uk> <2e90677a-4a0b-40fb-9428-e80eacf034fd@lucifer.local> 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=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Stat-Signature: t6jberdcqzsknotpb7ytfam5a4xe7dko X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5F68C20019 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX1+6D03dO5wfH8NnVpBHgNlYAV4WjyE3Gl8= X-HE-Tag: 1755008318-653852 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX19xoxMPFHdNuBcjkmgAxKAiMnXxu8/oO9IJAbY9EM7yrrkTrMHI/EmMsWtIh5ed1kxN2Wvd915THfL5MOCSnLWH5dI9qqlgxj1RMCUPdgjBh/KaGpA14H2+JLpPZSAxJ9ANPya0MrMfQ7Bcc2BE9qmkyCsDec6vw6kAq4GKLEGCM8W+P4Khtnuwr6NIDv2YlckULDLTpVCxzdSH4+L/KvM6HSHjqJ1QexCilX74Gv1T81aySQN634Zq1komy01zw+9rLLx/rmTr6pzSPmegbyO+kDAQbqLXzFo6SwDONTlvZqCCCC3uYQIXc0aGa2LOdUnAlZur53CbjdMQW4NiA1moiqXzrxnVwe49/j7vDhpr3A== On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 14:00:56 +0100 Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 01:25:23PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 08:26:41PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > > > - Was the commit message of this patch generated in large part by an LLM > > > (excluding non-native speakers using an LLM to simply assist writing it > > > in english)? > > > > Easiest way to say that is probably to say "written by" and "translated > > by". I think for all these things we should just talk about tooling > > rather than specifically LLMs, as well as avoiding any rules lawyering > > about how precisely a given tool is implemented it's probably useful to > > know about tools whatever the technology. > > That's a great idea!! > > And agreed on language/rules lawyering, I think we have to have something > _simple_ and robust at least to begin with. > > There are inevitably blurry lines everywhere with this stuff so I think we > have to be pragmatic and as clear as we possibly can. We can always refine > things later as we learn. I honestly don't care who or what writes the change log. As long as the reason for the change is clear and I can read it and then know what the patch is doing, and more importantly why it is doing it. Then I can be the judge. If I don't understand the change log, I simply send the patch back and say, "Please explain what your are doing and why your are doing it, better". For the longest time, I have rewritten change logs myself from other people if they don't explain it properly. Mostly from non-native speakers. Depending on how much of a rewrite I do, I'll get a confirmation from the submitter to make sure it's what they intended. If it's just fixing grammar mistakes I don't even ask. I use to say "Can you write something like this:" and explain it better, and the next version of the patch would always have what I suggested written verbatim, so I stopped doing that :-p -- Steve