From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (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 83BCE1D95A3 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 14:51:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760021514; cv=none; b=sIpfndxMIhVFb6Zfh38hz8GpEbliyDuL8JvJPP7GjhikYbdE7NxAmBM2Ydyod73EAHhy4bORqjFL+pb33IfmWjprueNEq1LsWVNdiGd9gjWf9UVgHwzW/PXZ0qZBZCk96ZORHTwLAG+tQfW+kcy+Wiaah+Fd+44qy+S1lMH6Pv8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760021514; c=relaxed/simple; bh=r968EebDSbo/HNZ0vJR2lAF35rXcEPRBtmazaOk9vRM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=HJx/58t8V/64BS7FdITE37rFs9delYybLxaWjZE0dYElJsQULj5uHFfcIzZHJQ6MX/6ttIWdy3kq8nOv4NTqWzbGFXs0sm0WxltlMjDApw8buNJUQs0ws3rn28fb5IJIhF4At2FIeLNz8yZvDQ2W1Y0Qw/Nfo1lRQT1n7E5WnBM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b=CJaVUFaR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="CJaVUFaR" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=2igSlKDCijAfHDovoXQr3SLcdqnE+ycc1LTY0P/NNRY=; b=CJaVUFaR6olevgYO061PQSLgQ/ 473sjexJ9gnASMQ8szrWUsZ0LwvbfUK1X9+4U+4z4nuKJyzuQQOBmTKlnY3C3w4wULcPiE7TDdRAw +k9c/6GyMYW07PmBaCeWsXk91ZdxQ6+eESXqXd1gaYH+NKz09Xp/+Wck8bXqA76ucjcI=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1v6rzX-00AXFp-LZ; Thu, 09 Oct 2025 16:51:39 +0200 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 16:51:39 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Laurent Pinchart , "Bird, Tim" , James Bottomley , 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> <20251009091405.GD12674@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20251009103019.632db002@gandalf.local.home> 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251009103019.632db002@gandalf.local.home> On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 10:30:19AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 12:14:05 +0300 > Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > Forcing contributors to pay for access to proprietary tools is not > > acceptable. Forcing contributors to even run proprietary tools is not > > acceptable. If maintainers want contributions to go through any > > proprietary tooling before submission, then this has to run on the > > maintainer side (be it on a maintainer's machine, in some form of CI, or > > somewhere else). > > 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. Not quite, at least not for netdev, which shares some infrastructure with BPF. Patches get ingested into patchwork, and then some time later, the CI system will get them from patchwork and run the tests. The results are then added to patchwork, both as red/yellow/green traffic lights, and clickable links to the test results. Failing tests don't automatically cause patchwork to change the status to "Change Requested", a human is needed to look at the actual failures and decide if the patch should be rejected or not. We also make it clear, this is not a public CI system anybody can submit patches to for testing. We expect patches to be "submission quality", not WIP. Anybody abusing that will get spoken to. > 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. The netdev CI does not run on the patchwork instance. It just uses the API patchwork offers to get patches from it, and tell it about test results. But you are correct, somebody pays for the netdev CI, and it is not the submitter. Andrew