From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from imap4.hz.codethink.co.uk (imap4.hz.codethink.co.uk [188.40.203.114]) (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 3E8D928726C for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:36:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=188.40.203.114 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755009416; cv=none; b=MGhb4nQ4xb90ztcx3BAYIm399mDMeJjEL2jGCFtvQ6IYIfco91bTTgqkpQg81FLsSDhgQ/X9UT7wXh1vAd+sL7eU43kEaDnGqgOOELSrWumOzSA+fiUgBCtRQUxai0K2f9X9DfwyMMxK0B7vZcTFRtiYqmPdAsN0SeQfmMgLQ4s= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1755009416; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ptq+Y0QteqBWU6wZNGOIUiBUt8hlGXhVFFC6DU21Yig=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=MFHoYfMDUvQd4IW0QomeZZSPJpcHz6ieFIJoPrlJrjuFVWu8Uu0g7w7/x3gH1B910qH+gJztggbnNjlboXczWt30KGS8t/VMh2TgzOfUpDzbH9Ouxmz6mK+No5aQMtDIu+2AFW9Smgq+W9GouNdKhZS4qqOsvrX1ALSj7irGo3I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=codethink.co.uk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codethink.co.uk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codethink.co.uk header.i=@codethink.co.uk header.b=QlWgOdVR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=188.40.203.114 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=codethink.co.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=codethink.co.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=codethink.co.uk header.i=@codethink.co.uk header.b="QlWgOdVR" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codethink.co.uk; s=imap4-20230908; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ny/7vSRPcjN18aA6DlYSY8tyYL6U8Z5A1t9xNiTtubQ=; b=QlWgOdVRptoe+93vXJo/qQiKJJ 1yJKmUXFmKei2P3AKeQ7MCBy3ORMsdHigwSc9vogGu3d4z/GS1ChbZENhh9TlgrmmrcNSmhhs6E0R vOqwatD5g7FMJemUNcIohbC7itu5avCZpG19S3wmBAnt1lP6dHKJeHoSE+c8fHROAzeMI6vrpC1ZX RFBHW76iN5vzgsOzuDkohcAlnvs2q9gOMaiZhubIG2e8YRsdD973FpyEOEqFpDi7qKO+NnYl7DUQ8 8Hc67n9zoK/sjVJ4y0EaUIdRvHV6REHHEaVpvmwvYmdI1hanSSVJu+U2K2xAnTBbYXBkU8R2zT0UF SvDAAnVA==; Received: from [167.98.27.226] (helo=[10.35.6.194]) by imap4.hz.codethink.co.uk with esmtpsa (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Debian)) id 1ulq7H-00CNCA-7m; Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:36:43 +0100 Message-ID: <47ef32d0-f87d-4788-b2bc-f61390717667@codethink.co.uk> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:36:42 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code To: Mark Brown , Dan Carpenter Cc: Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> Content-Language: en-GB From: Ben Dooks Organization: Codethink Limited. In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk On 06/08/2025 11:13, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 11:17:23AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >> Just a "Patch generated with AI" under the --- cut off line would be >> fine. > >> We had a patch in staging from AI which "copy and pasted" from a spec >> that it had hallucinated. The language in the commit message is so >> smooth and confident that it took a re-read to see that it's totally >> nonsense. A lot of the patches in staging are from newbies and >> sometimes kids and I believe the person who sent the AI assisted >> patch did it with good intentions. But, ugh, I don't want to deal >> with that. > > I think the suggestion from an earlier thread that people should say > what the AI they were using (as they tend to for static checkers and > so on) was good - that's useful for both noticing tools that work well > and tracking things down if we notice a pattern of errors with some > tool. Also, if AI is used, then how was it used? Keeping the inputs may also be useful ? -- Ben Dooks http://www.codethink.co.uk/ Senior Engineer Codethink - Providing Genius https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html