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

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1045 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 12:43:38PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-08-05 at 17:03 +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:

> > * On the other hand, there are use cases which are useful - test
> > data/code generation, summarisation, smart auto-complete - so it'd
> > perhaps be foolish to entirely dismiss AI.

> Patch backporting is another such nice use.

Patch backporting sounds pretty scary to me, it's the sort of thing
where extra context that needs to be accounted for is very likely to
come up (eg, assumptions you can make about existing state or
santisation).  That trips up humans often enough and doesn't seem like
it's playing to the strengths advertised for LLMs.

TBH I'm not thrilled about the general test code is trivial assumption
either, unstable test code or test code that doesn't cover what people
think it covers are both problems.  The issues when things go wrong are
less severe than the kernel itself but things still need to be
maintained and we already have issues with people being dismissive of
the selftests.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]