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 331AC227BB5 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 17:47:56 +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=1760032077; cv=none; b=P1A2ynHpOfqSEGrsfRkVMHbNGt6xYc16XDfEwSBNfGIOvZt9juoNaCbNcHQ647g0q/vF0KubykgaW/hr6+Ry8UIxuKp0ypz9YCAAmTCozgrUKYcdmClPWcQnG5cFWcq3YeP8G1xVMU4zssBmDaBKzkyYe2j5Y0Va+vCcITbbFqw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760032077; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WBlDbs0gxq391PfA9JyKEHkPA1WWC6Y70o6c9bj9n80=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BpjGv95vTxyEvCCA4WvmQoRveVajhMT9LN5eIKeU1xZdz9Zg/90ofldTYRHl/jrssqCW+46Vbu+mjXsOinBQci2ndw8zXf4tTPnshkCFO4K5cAwFkYpxaRTOckE+v3wMa6X/0XttrtEMZq1FaPpYHh7JzKZ3Eu6iBsyU4a6yU0U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=I0MSz1F9; 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="I0MSz1F9" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E731C4CEE7; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 17:47:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1760032076; bh=WBlDbs0gxq391PfA9JyKEHkPA1WWC6Y70o6c9bj9n80=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=I0MSz1F9kOZcFEq7Q82qUcvzdO4EQhdWaNf2qN8HZRBZr26COnAqlJv1MgOZ/Ree6 1UKorZoO79BS2hflb4obQ8yefCwmEF9ZMv6Ey1GbgMnJqHcRrj0W21tBfRhpY4AGAP 9EvjzQU+kqKsovLyhRSmfXndhbYnd5snVpLjzgRte/gN0EYS9wRElMIeTmkVFxA7XI OEDxtljwBnXQRZF1Gk5L+Xx7r7BjuOtmomkgA5B9SkesoTgg7ZbqvU9ipDb7KVa1wT Dc9uWoL9/ierX85dWaNNR6Lv127eB5S1CCXsMxmMTWbFKLbuSmBvfS+El1vjiHWjUb whetoMWpiJ0AA== Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 14:47:54 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Alexei Starovoitov Cc: Chris Mason , Steven Rostedt , Laurent Pinchart , "Bird, Tim" , James Bottomley , Andrew Lunn , "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> <20251009091405.GD12674@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20251009103019.632db002@gandalf.local.home> <3f25bd06-a75f-4de8-b8f4-f92dffb62f09@meta.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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 10:31:10AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:24 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 02:19:58PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 12:31:48PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > On 10/9/25 10:30 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > One way I see this working is to attach it to patchwork. Sending a patch to > > > > > the BPF mailing list has their patchwork trigger a bunch of tests and it > > > > > will tell you if it passed or failed. I'm assuming if it failed, it doesn't > > > > > add it to patchwork and the maintainers will ignore it. > > > > > Attaching AI to patchwork could be useful as well. But this would run on > > > > > some server that someone will have to pay for. But it will not be the > > > > > submitter. > > > > Just to clarify, that's what already happens with BPF today. > > > > Ex: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/9962 are all from the > > > > review prompts. > > > This almost relieves me from the guilt not to have reviewed that series > > > from Alan ;-\ > > But this goes back to "developers should run these tools before > > submitting upstream", which would provide them with reviewing comments > > that would improve the quality of their pull requests by using all the > > money that is being dreamed into AI and would saved all of us from > > looking at github, etc, before AI is satisfied with the quality of the > > submitters work? > > Its all about what should distract maintainers (humans?), no? > Our next step is to send them as plain text emails, so that reviews Great! > will blend in into natural kernel development process: > submitter send patches, AI and/or human replies, submitter replies > and insists that their code is correct and AI/human is wrong, > or admits the bug and fixes it in the next respin. And so on. Right, the thing I see making lots of people not trying to see AI as a helping hand is that they do some one-off attempt while crossing their hands wishing not to get a good answer. When they get a good answer they think they are "cheating". This is a knee-jerk reaction, focus on how you can get rid of mundane work. > Chris did a tremendous job in reducing false positives. I have not tested it, but people in my team have and gave me great feedback, we're on it! > These reviews were proven to be quite accurate and spotted > bugs that maintainers didn't. In a few cases the maintainer > found a bug and pointed it out, but AI explained the bug better. I'm a believer, there is help to be obtained from all this, lets reap it. - Arnaldo