Re: [MAINTAINERS / KERNEL SUMMIT] AI patch review tools

[Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>]

> I think maintainers can't take anything for sure, even when dealing with
> contributors that posted tons of patches before :-/
> 
> And as you said, we can't count on contributors running existing tests,
> or using things like linters, checkpatch, you name it, let alone AI
> assistants.

I agree. Maintainers run these tests as well just to confirm the
developer has run the test. And Maintainers probably take less notice
of the output, and look more at the passed/failed exist status. Why it
failed is generally not too important, the fact it failed just needs
to be bounced back to the submitter so they can investigate and fix
the issue.

But this also requires these tests are reproducible, and that is one
question i have. checkpatch, sparse, kdoc, Coccinelle are all
reproducible. They give the same answer every time. If it passes for
the developer, it should also pass for the Maintainer. But is this
true of AI tools? Are they reproducible?

   Andrew