From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (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 B561E4C6C for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 20:29:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759955358; cv=none; b=bs+OFNMAjR5G10NaKil6Cd0KaVc4AIsCDtMQ70E3Et1wtX4MN9rNyJ9O7MD+fCE5nlYTZN/fmC5RH5I1NhSL5SKLpNJ/tOo7I5ZYThXDBxcrZpjJ2sPJy3v6Nc+AwFmmfNN5ERQXdTX3nzdhtIdUkLWdVa5B92tFT3xq6IGCGac= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759955358; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yru6V6tdGN05E8j9ND6jzUv/dpuAmYwLS9RpyQzjKXs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YG1xmkJNp2Eaojno3VaJfmH/0OhjP4ogq2jTvhQqhEdwhEhDIWliOQTGdqMveOUWsDMOMQi6xDsbjZKRyDJQiUmaHjXoFSdisZmHHQ8ZFA1fNhniPARUFB0lJns4SuhItwgng4TomzLJbDc/7DNzEWWVMUhyRglxDwvCAKN1Imw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b=aApEhJY5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="aApEhJY5" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=Nt1/9LUKNaucC9oIWZISN8Dga9Qt+CfwZSUtYFoUZ48=; b=aApEhJY5nOcgmjeLL07nTErmF3 0npwAhs+mamagyiEGM2WrOVigJ6rk8AnKPxiXlSiPI1NFj5OXmjSw0lbOrcLBciVkf0XXfOJ2zcHa 2j+6wQAh4ertaW68SySi9C/DIV0138C7N04pnvhNTdG00kLKsDep1Arc7wnVGxmrs3qg=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1v6amd-00ATdo-5u; Wed, 08 Oct 2025 22:29:11 +0200 Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 22:29:11 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Laurent Pinchart , Chris Mason , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, Dan Carpenter , Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS / KERNEL SUMMIT] AI patch review tools Message-ID: <64f6eab8-1f0a-42e2-835f-a548d2fd6df5@lunn.ch> References: <20251008193349.GI16422@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: > 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