Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] The role of AI and LLMs in the kernel process

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 07:46:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 07:01:01PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>
> > However the point is that we can:
>
> > - Generate scenarios relatively quickly that way.
> > - Resulatant mistakes are at least _less_ impactful. And you'd hope, would come
> >   out in the wash more easily.
>
> > However, I wonder whether it might be better simply to restrict LLMs to test
> > data generation or the like.
>
> Yeah, test data seems much safer than test code since it's much more
> constrained.  I'm definitely not 100% against trying things with code,
> I'm more worried about people throwing something out there without
> really looking at it properly since it's just test code.  With the
> scenario generation for example the question is always if we'd be
> happier with the test program being a scenario generator - sometimes the
> answer is no (eg, because it's too expensive to run and you really need
> to pick scenarios), sometimes the answer is yes even though the
> resulting test program is more involved.

And equally, those reviewing test code such as yourself are a finite
resource, and a sudden onset of patches that might result is a
consideration also.

>
> > These are again all exactly the kinds of things that make this an important
> > topic to discuss I believe :)
>
> Indeed, and I'm going to guess that it's going to be as much about
> establishing taste as firm rules.

Absolutely agree :)

Cheers, Lorenzo