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

["Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@sony.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 09:08:33PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > My goal for KS/MS is to discuss how to enable maintainers to use review
> > > automation tools to lower their workload.
> >
> > Maintainers will want to use these tools, if they prove to be
> > useful. But ideally, we want the developers to use these tools and fix
> > the issues before they post code for review. That reduces the
> > maintainers workload even more. So Maintainers just need to run the
> > tools to prove that the developers have run the tools and have already
> > fixed the problems.
> >
> > So i'm not sure your goal is the correct long term goal. It should be
> > a tool for everybody, not just maintainers.
> 
> This raises the interesting and important question of how to get patch
> submitters to follow a recommended workflow. We routinely get patches
> that produce checkpatch errors that are clearly not false positives.
> Rob Herring implemented a bot to run checks on device tree bindings and
> device tree sources because lots of patches fail those checks. I'm sure
> there are lots of other examples that have led maintainers to automate
> checks on the receiver's side, through various types of standard CIs or
> hand-made solutions. Submitters should run more tests, how to get them
> to do so is a broader question.

Maybe it would be worthwhile to annotate patch submissions with tags
indicating what tools have been run on them.  I know we're trying to avoid
overuse of commit tags, but maybe we could automate this a bit, and/or'
reuse the 'Reviewed-by:' tag in the commit message.  I could envision, in some
future workflow utopia, where a missing 'Reviewed-by: checkpatch.pl AND claude AI review'
would be grounds for requesting these before human review.

 -- Tim