From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 CE6E82652B4 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 22:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759962106; cv=none; b=DC+Mbrej7lwBzR72vZ3SHs9lCD5edSvOBK4iR00ZzYwRDuhevXfCllKlwJjhF0N0RsZEUmvAD6G5r4XNijteywETCKlvMudBVNL0JqKDPtKDdxf1Kj7F1l8E3gSbq6rjqUtJ2B3HrvuPloxjRJ2T9PoO0AnpuJ9FDNh3wLCjBu4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759962106; c=relaxed/simple; bh=onP4ZdRtII5ggrHXXq6muIXcHzkCukW/pIuamJ9UsKw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ENzzGV1KtQkhPrzWIEgebdUToIoq/TmpMg9SKJbaTDMf6MKZYoDdPsJkMSFUeivxSFlGupPWjiyKm0W+79d8e++D22K2ZjhpVhmDt79726u3wK7i16YKVUri+fC5lJKEfce+n8j3D5jN9GWFU+08OlG9uKFG9ffaex7xSmGcLtM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=lqePRY5O; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="lqePRY5O" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1386FC4CEE7; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 22:21:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1759962106; bh=onP4ZdRtII5ggrHXXq6muIXcHzkCukW/pIuamJ9UsKw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=lqePRY5OE7PjowvIO3p8ZfKU4HCX+mWanf773+cC8RQmgJmZ6C1M68fkb3Z3EcThZ pmP/25A3LfnRUPXp/S1aSt1316vzpbCRB0l6jyYD77TZbSl/3Y8u9jsNz9HYEqJ/4v c6iZDwtsUcDGXGL7okMmUUXbxCXxr4E9y0Rael4+dFBAZvj2SNJ8Tp7Q2Xh9/sQzDO MOvim6AwJMrAzvB7D95kI0ba0rOuy8WKhHx6R0U14vWkuVw7k8fYbhqRyT8g5Lvxt2 h5W2ndFenG9uSyikcnhgRXEIPOeuXlfiPiE1XgYcGIdkA4Bc5oC28HHVOcOdP26SM2 +a695AMXNI+aw== Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 00:21:43 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: "Bird, Tim" cc: James Bottomley , "laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com" , Andrew Lunn , Chris Mason , "ksummit@lists.linux.dev" , Dan Carpenter , Alexei Starovoitov , Rob Herring Subject: RE: [MAINTAINERS / KERNEL SUMMIT] AI patch review tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <71ss7536-3519-1p59-3450-0n399598p644@xreary.bet> References: <20251008192934.GH16422@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 On Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Bird, Tim wrote: > > Realistically, we can't even get some submitters to run checkpatch, so > > I don't think the additional tag would help. Agreed. > > What does help is having the 0day bot take a feed of the mailing list, > > select the [PATCH] tag and run checkpatch.pl as part of the tests, so > > someone could do the same with whatever AI acceptance tests are > > agreed. > > There's no question that 0day automation of checkpatch.pl feedback > has been a great thing. I suspect that more submitters would run > checkpatch before sending their patches, if failure to do so resulted > in automatic rejection of the patch. This is more of a process backbone > issue than anything else. Quite often the checkpatch-reported warnings are so negligible/trivial that it takes less energy to just (a) either take the patch as-is, or (b) modify it before application than to go through the whole resubmission round (*), so there is no incentive for the submitter to do better next time. I am not saying what is right or wrong, that's just the way it (sometimes) is. (*) Especially if the patch is actually a good and needed one, and you'd need to keep track whether the resubmission really happened, etc. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs