From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 5ADF319F464 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 19:29:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759951785; cv=none; b=mE3AOUkIZ7aBHhqHS4zxyh3ob/EjCLNgacBvYq3l9jZDMw4Xnhdz5Qb5VXB9W1lth0HoIDHa0WKbkuYG3ZhB3a3kn8fMC4RGJea8UNWEyECVMACKjS0UwsIsPfufsydwtDkO2OHdNFQVxUKZyy/QWNDDBEa8inqcLuiRyA5DeVA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759951785; c=relaxed/simple; bh=m7c5jYfZHvPzHzUdGNszggjiG6dn0azMrvKlRwZVdD8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=B0/MyAXrxt/e1iEdsr8Yv7F/yd/xgoIPXCesszzUexi8vu9zxw3dq+WftznNfG5pN6Hr2jUHYKIhDdL83+aBlFPoqCB1yia5y7gcFYj8ZjTtRo3j8W9O3Xf9JYzjkcxxJFFpxM8IFuMTy/+K/v08OKG7BQlszbP5kdoo2Ad8Qoo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=LL4UYg7l; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="LL4UYg7l" Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (82-203-166-19.bb.dnainternet.fi [82.203.166.19]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id CD10E1831; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 21:28:07 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1759951688; bh=m7c5jYfZHvPzHzUdGNszggjiG6dn0azMrvKlRwZVdD8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LL4UYg7lgCgJlwSkczpN8OyCvChViyqkhR+TRQzitdp20/Xr5D+vuR1/Jej+yovqF 9bNSXGeAH0oRiRhNilPvOQX6AqXtBRGAHdJxLL0aaWcVTn/v1+zInTpT5pGYKDwHqb MiVxzwZO22n8h2NrK0D4bs98LQTyzYHRmbvo+9nc= Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 22:29:34 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Andrew Lunn Cc: Chris Mason , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, Dan Carpenter , Alexei Starovoitov , Rob Herring Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS / KERNEL SUMMIT] AI patch review tools Message-ID: <20251008192934.GH16422@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 09:08:33PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > My goal for KS/MS is to discuss how to enable maintainers to use review > > automation tools to lower their workload. > > Maintainers will want to use these tools, if they prove to be > useful. But ideally, we want the developers to use these tools and fix > the issues before they post code for review. That reduces the > maintainers workload even more. So Maintainers just need to run the > tools to prove that the developers have run the tools and have already > fixed the problems. > > So i'm not sure your goal is the correct long term goal. It should be > a tool for everybody, not just maintainers. This raises the interesting and important question of how to get patch submitters to follow a recommended workflow. We routinely get patches that produce checkpatch errors that are clearly not false positives. Rob Herring implemented a bot to run checks on device tree bindings and device tree sources because lots of patches fail those checks. I'm sure there are lots of other examples that have led maintainers to automate checks on the receiver's side, through various types of standard CIs or hand-made solutions. Submitters should run more tests, how to get them to do so is a broader question. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart