From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) (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 0CA2B260578 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 14:21:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=216.40.44.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760106074; cv=none; b=XwNu0TV+5QNNdtnWGg8PXXxQMHJI/aO6lMFcOJxXLm3WUukJvpJVmmCzun69FXiCaq6G+J4QTrViLjQruMGBzhCm5vLnTmtTFh/2Y8AkLgdwDALbNoOO+njBrVI7Jz1mKjHuRNzhgA5advOpFqP/UDEDQI7fShqOG9cfG9oL9fI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760106074; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vpgl9VKNszAfwceLtFmOyBxzdwOgS8o8nsR81+HyHmk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NBLE+Hfzp3+av1n4m2D1ywK6HeLqx8nnxkVSdAbDHKYzAoZJka9l2zSxdX8lS/68R0dSkCmxqTBMSvFyYUbos1z69W5ai3h1jEydkZmgqm2revfCrnqqj4oAd8ibRRPj4qKxysKvOPSi3zslpmIl88IZa0D3KxpUH+4T8eUFPPU= 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=216.40.44.11 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 omf17.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F46CC0368; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 14:21:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: rostedt@goodmis.org) by omf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 151B322; Fri, 10 Oct 2025 14:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 10:21:04 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: James Bottomley , Chris Mason , "Bird, Tim" , Andrew Lunn , "ksummit@lists.linux.dev" , Dan Carpenter , Alexei Starovoitov , Rob Herring Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS / KERNEL SUMMIT] AI patch review tools Message-ID: <20251010102104.65eb6431@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20251010115334.GB28598@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20251008192934.GH16422@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20251009091405.GD12674@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20251010075413.GD29493@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <3996fd684c497c7bcb4ad406ff3cec99df7180df.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20251010115334.GB28598@pendragon.ideasonboard.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=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Stat-Signature: du15i4t85u1mp3d18k18j9j5mem8ouhn X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 151B322 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX18Hyrz2g37ELeuA8vL5dYb4ZTADakz+cGs= X-HE-Tag: 1760106061-680594 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX1/x2fMoGiCZDDgAkq4IMFtIgdrx9mBDEX+rapw73EpEBknMidJSGI649sCT9knaz9C1IyXAmHDM1fk4lpGHuvIHnUWNsxWAeJQojJcB30uZ8xqQXEOZjpX8142Xz5cwwvTNEIgqj2fm02X4U16qBsJMfoFsKmNJiu3ZlTrTDVIAffEzPYgPCujuqIWAcgwvQFYPX0MhM2bC8mxw1Ldx9OLnPKenlH4zt0115I5s1TGyU/JD9JsuxrlIFEahZpJB3Vp/5AvqxN3RJLaplRIYLryA4+mUw83f1jhMr651B1K4MhmOXnyQj9P3wxpxkm4u9MknSY0e8B4n0Vndo1pG0d2mtezifc1mcuNPZZzqV0vsq4HJfnbOp+F6 On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 14:53:34 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > This is pre-supposing that AI will always be proprietary. Given the > > vast expansion of open source over the last couple of decades I > > wouldn't take that bet. > > I wouldn't bet either way, but I tend to play it safe. I wouldn't want > to go in the direction of relying on proprietary technologies based > solely on the hope that at some point in the future we will get free > alternatives. I'm absolutely fine if people want to start experimenting > now based on that assumption, as long as we make it clear it's too early > to cross a point of no return. If it's just in CI, I don't think we need to worry too much for proprietary lock in. It's currently a "nice to have". That is, we can catch issues of submissions faster and hopefully maintainers do not need to waste time on reviewing bugs in a patch that an AI caught. If it sends the report to the submitter and also Cc's the maintainer, it would benefit both. I find reading a review from someone else (and verifying it) much easier than doing the review myself ;-) > > > > If we were to push the burden of running LLM-based review to > > > contributors this wouldn't affect us that much, but if we run it on > > > the maintainers' side (be it on the server side with bots that get > > > patches from mailing lists, CI systems that feed from patchwork, or > > > on the client side) the risk of vendor lock-in is higher. > > > > Pushing the burden on to contributors always causes more friction than > > building it into the CI. Plus if there's a cost involved you're making > > contribution pay for play which really doesn't work out well. > > Neither side is ideal :-/ Given all the arguments given in this thread I > think we would need to run checks on the maintainer side in any case, > even if we were to try and push them to the developer side. For that > reason it makes sense to first focus on the maintainer side, and try to > solve the technical, financial and freedom issues there as we'll have to > anyway. > > As for pay-for-play, let's discuss a tax on upstream contributions > around a bottle of nihonshu at LPC. That topic requires not being sober > :-) I'd like to be part of this "discussion" ;-) > > > > Maybe proprietary technology lock-in would be a better description > > > as this isn't about a single vendor. > > > > Well, firstly we've had this before: us with bitkeeper and most > > recently Kubernetes with Slack and everyone has survived. But secondly > > the far more likely scenario is that the AI stock bubble bursts and the > > investment dries up changing the way AI is done (definitely killing the > > who can by powerstations and huge hardware installations model of > > today) and who the players are (probably the point at which open source > > becomes more prevalent). > > I'd love to fast-track to that and skip the current tragicomedy. > > > However, regardless of what happens in future, it will be way easier to > > cope with if we've got AI in the CI rather than trying to push it into > > contributor tooling. 100% agree -- Steve