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 65E3C212560 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 20:30:35 +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=1759955435; cv=none; b=AlEsN+EOHa/6OPo6KNj6fMNlE/ebQLKY36ilYRkOYn/wjECNEze7mz2SrOzZ4v0fF0PcxeLa6J+sEd3Zj766nKtUL6+bmAgQw2hYBimS92E9v45lDvlTh/VbMWAULuoHvsjpJwnC++ZmqjQ9FPq0W42+RGRiCcBYg5Vv02Njcu0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759955435; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZI/+EDpirfpD7jE80bymJAYV8XOSGdotKCE0j2rXF+c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=iLy9B4XIgaXwu4PBX1kQSTT+sV1vvSUpUq3PbRQ8KrGMntCFLgvHNgPSsnvudGgar8Vv6m7FWeai2RJQVNAo1n3VQqmIybAppgrlw+Vq2w7O+HIoRmbIslb/UbrByjFWFcp3iDMvv/26W71CMQ6UwZfbyY1wpa3CHpwbpb49lKo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=dKRHK4H0; 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="dKRHK4H0" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 121E8C4CEE7; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 20:30:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1759955435; bh=ZI/+EDpirfpD7jE80bymJAYV8XOSGdotKCE0j2rXF+c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dKRHK4H0kD+7JOSJe7vk9fzPgGr5RQfO4BiAJ0iJ9jnMTactU+uLJv0nHwF9hR6Ry arextHHZ+zPTcupYFmz8M79SeMP41Zus4ERSPMyxc0+RxiQyZ0m1Ydysik1fB61kVc 0J7d8AKllmHzpoGrhxQToxirdLExDwQeCYMCS7LzQuKt14hljeKI+uH0kSYnnf87yF plKtbmGp2OSX6gjZLxm6UOtseR8DgrjyA8BvrvtoFrjXLgJhB7xeRhclf+eVXlT12l mwJ/A7AnBESrIL3IdjlM4WHelEUI5bFi/q0evowkAA2h4SKhz33mJwJMNBbRCQ5e0X Orqfqh83B3APg== Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 16:30:32 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: "Bird, Tim" Cc: "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 Message-ID: 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; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 07:50:32PM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Laurent Pinchart >> 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. This is similar to what was proposed in the last round[1] of discussions around disclosing (AI) tool usage. From the cover letter: Assisted-by: Claude-claude-3-opus-20240229 checkpatch At which point maintainers can set their own policies for their subsystem and automate workflows based on those policies. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250809234008.1540324-1-sashal@kernel.org/ -- Thanks, Sasha