From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 6073A3ACEF7 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 07:21:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784186488; cv=none; b=KQ3yzepEFtLeHsXWgbrCeKOt2rkEEUubY8iaVASNXC5DHCau6aYZbOPm8IqMqh4BJ7EHlV3bMCuPh7VjtjKRwth6/kwm5obJbl48kM8Ag2dGkdP8FKc3SehjqICcoi6eM0nfhQHiOOu5MLcFH9ARAF34Hv4yguZCWXefjIp0ABQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784186488; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5FBMWSGzEScMOTk87ZTvNOzxx8qNGOBVLCevz6UHjaU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DIRhSuoArsZDOHOWbyWaLkjPzxVCLdTmPNiXJ4HqQj7kO4DyhdIHs78k/A6Ob5wCWsTNLZPmZeIDBfwr8lokUSjIrFBpYFc/UNhs2XSCEMWwazm8dcb0QKuLkktObWSL10OU3Ww8VpvmUxWqN0jA9MGP+/Hw4ASM8kf8BKoEr10= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=flE5AO9q; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="flE5AO9q" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF5CD1F000E9; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 07:21:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784186485; bh=2Zp/KwL3Bnw2mvz8HpIEhSyh4cPzh9navkFQ0MVAt4g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=flE5AO9qcJtUUUFAHTLmg39iuPJLRaykR4JzYW8T114usKM/y2f6jg1Dc2QK6ytVU E8GUHLDZ9CrdoTSt5Ef33dasSeYa0Y2rygHCbzNU2QS86Igd3RbwwjsElsBLdTK4k5 2y95xGYJLsuch4U5inxUVTQ2TMyucjL2vYhcSla0mPdgiTO1LKiib0PUKAtLCtgwHQ GkgM/GmEPi/7zKUjuzfSdS52u1Kb4Q/ZMXxZt0Ox4hUZOaIDpr8WxB4xfy94MgI/I+ xa0NFXf5MMzL5GUqF66dnhI63Ulw6q6Ex5Ntrmp4SOau9TA1SMbV8hgZeCH//LTGIE LJsmSSo3sm6Zw== Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:21:20 +0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Jan Kara , Theodore Tso , Roman Gushchin , Derek Barbosa , Matthieu Baerts , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Jason Gunthorpe , Steven Rostedt , users@kernel.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Stephen Finucane Subject: Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko? Message-ID: <20260716092120.75c7fca7@foz.lan> In-Reply-To: <20260715202808.GN1778116@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260710083845.23c753ca@foz.lan> <87wlv2jq4t.fsf@linux.dev> <20260713095538.3d5e86f1@foz.lan> <20260713094120.GD1127719@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260713220427.582b28bf@foz.lan> <7ia4mrvtrxjl.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260715161111.GC1778116@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260715202808.GN1778116@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.4.0 (GTK 3.24.52; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 23:28:08 +0300 Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > Flipping the argument, should contributors be obliged to do extra work > > > that make them feel diminished as a human ? I'm talking here about > > > justifying themselves against LLM arguments that have not been analyzed > > > by a maintainer first. > > > > You write here about "feeling diminished" or "justifying themselves" and > > I'm not sure I get it. If you get a complaint from some CI running > > checkpatch or say coverity which is bogus (or perhaps correct?), do you > > also feel diminished or needing to justify? I just don't see how LLMs are > > different here... > > No, I don't get the same feeling. This is due to multiple factors. One > of them is due to the more deterministic nature of those tools. I know a > build failure from the 0day bot is a build failure. I know what warnings > from checkpatch can be ignored in a given subsystem. Not quite true: smatch is not deterministic: it depends on a database it builds from previous runs. https://github.com/error27/smatch/blob/master/Documentation/smatch.rst#using-smatch > I know that I can > reply to some reported issues saying they're false positives and won't > be asked for a full justification. Just like any bot review, there's no need to justify obvious things, but the way to make reviewers/maintainers aware of false positives is to reply. That's how our process have been working all those years. Thanks, Mauro