From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 3A2F1391835 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 20:38:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784234301; cv=none; b=E9k2sYbjtlAxsrHhi62VSMKmEGUefQ3gMbEBc/rCu64Xo/tagxPMse2NVryIE+5bEu3FabHWdnIJH1/VxLTw+UWbUI/N7NRZuYq56x0LTait8PWgHbgOI40tvJxbiwEMYk5UpoPW+3ILJzzx0o1obpqZBlXRnZNbsHU4cbIkq2I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784234301; c=relaxed/simple; bh=69L1/sJaSwCb1oEhMWG4JYY8boBXoXLnyEexKu49Dl0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qtsUX7ULvcuIBi6gMzSF6/1BJoHa5YGQcJ4UUND3tUUaabg/FOS0WHizbV/ZyIl3iMvYATkLYEPR+qjMql7uUCas6t5cImo7FkJFCqKeEgYdZn8aYkdVLlXfLFNy0GwjCv/xnh1QqCXT5xUGemCPhzjN7igwFKqs8Jqv1DE0QT8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=dEcO6a9i; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="dEcO6a9i" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D64F87CA; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 22:37:16 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1784234237; bh=69L1/sJaSwCb1oEhMWG4JYY8boBXoXLnyEexKu49Dl0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=dEcO6a9iJK9qiUdaHdSrHOXufsxKdTxUGERBc/eKRZbrZO88OsfzJRhnRVxsQEj/A xFJO6rofrr/SvhaNUwRuq8x36cvm8TcViMspfVVcs3uDLY5IS1/jfpRqkg0gp9LMpw TR3s/CsCuizbwzBvkJM6oJBmO6bfXYrd4PTvOv0k= Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 23:38:10 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Sasha Levin Cc: Mark Brown , Jonathan Corbet , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Other LLM-related topics - tags, newcomers, etc Message-ID: <20260716203810.GF1735001@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <87wluv7yzc.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> 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 In-Reply-To: Hi Sasha, On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 12:24:45PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 05:08:40PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 11:28:25AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 09:09:27AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > >> > - There are many first-time contributors coming in with LLM-generated > >> > patches. At times, I could swear that every one of them is focused on > > > >> > Our maintainers are not scaling to handle this new flood, and I fear we > >> > are going to see some unfortunate things merged. One LLM-driven newcomer > >> > recently nearly succeeded in establishing himself as the maintainer of > >> > lib/. How do we hold the line against this stuff while remaining open to > >> > new developers? > > > >> Shouldn't it be a merits question rather than a tools question? > > > >> If the commits are correct, does it matter if they were written with an LLM? we > >> can insist more on supplying tests and demonstrating correctness, something we > >> seem to be doing quite rarely right now. > > > > The issue (which a number of projects are facing) is as much one of > > volume as anything else, the code generation machines are enabling the > > generation and submision of volumes of code where things were previously > > constrained by human factors. It can turn into a bit of a DoS. I don't > > have any particularly bright ideas here but it's definitely a thing. > > Sure, we're seeing quite the increase in patch submissions, but I'm trying to > argue that the issue isn't a new one: lack of maintainers, trusted reviewers, > and maintainer burnout has been a topic at each kernel summit for as long as I > can remember. AI just kicks it up a notch. > > My concern is that if we focus on the AI aspect, we still won't be solving the > underlying issue. > > I'm hoping we can figure out how to get maintainers great tooling, testing, and > community, rather than figuring out how to block a developer who uses LLM. > Maybe AI would actually be a great catalyst for that as well? Didn't you argue in another part of this thread that we're in no danger of being depending on AI for our processes ? I see a contradiction here. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart