From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: "Liam R. Howlett" <liam@infradead.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
ksummit@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Other LLM-related topics - tags, newcomers, etc
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 16:54:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260717145447.GH6843@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <sg6yidkiqfwegabxwkrcb2dhlfkqjquwyad75xqd4j7w7o7gtx@eh6czm5aoxuy>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 04:23:19PM -0400, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> So on Greg's note that having an LLM tag is a signal, I question the
> SNR now and if the signal is the same indicator across all patches.
Yes. The possible range of involvement is massive. The question I
would find more interesting than a binary flag is who was doing what
part of the thinking at each step of creating the patch(es).
You can use agents to draft code, make tests, run experiments, analyze
data, and review for bugs. The human can apply a high level of
direction, scrutiny and steering on each of these steps. Or they can
just not do any of that and still get some kind of result.
Once a workable direction is found, the final result that gets sent to
the list could be a clean-room implementation written by the human, it
could be fully written by an agent, or anything in between.
And finally the human could have reviewed the work end-to-end,
line-by-line; delegated it all to a review agent; or neither.
The process behind a patch with this tag could be anywhere on this
spectrum. And reviewer interpretation of the tag is just as varied.
It poorly communicates what actually occurred. And there is clearly a
stigma attached to it at this point, with the expected consequences,
which further distorts the signal. The latter part might go away if
there was a better protocol to convey the development process.
But I'm not sure it's practical to even try to capture all these
nuances and precise division of labor questions in commit metadata...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-17 14:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-16 15:09 [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Other LLM-related topics - tags, newcomers, etc Jonathan Corbet
2026-07-16 15:28 ` Sasha Levin
2026-07-16 16:08 ` Mark Brown
2026-07-16 16:24 ` Sasha Levin
2026-07-16 20:38 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-07-17 14:09 ` Sasha Levin
2026-07-17 14:25 ` Mark Brown
2026-07-16 18:36 ` Jonathan Corbet
2026-07-16 19:53 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2026-07-16 23:59 ` Theodore Tso
2026-07-17 0:58 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2026-07-17 2:27 ` Theodore Tso
2026-07-17 7:19 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2026-07-17 13:55 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2026-07-17 14:24 ` Andrew Lunn
2026-07-17 14:32 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2026-07-17 14:50 ` Andrew Lunn
2026-07-17 20:21 ` Theodore Tso
2026-07-16 20:05 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-07-16 20:52 ` James Bottomley
2026-07-16 20:23 ` Liam R. Howlett
2026-07-17 7:49 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-07-17 15:55 ` Liam R. Howlett
2026-07-17 11:57 ` James Bottomley
2026-07-17 15:53 ` Liam R. Howlett
2026-07-17 18:12 ` James Bottomley
2026-07-17 18:27 ` Dan Carpenter
2026-07-17 18:42 ` James Bottomley
2026-07-17 14:54 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2026-07-17 16:09 ` Liam R. Howlett
2026-07-16 21:23 ` Theodore Tso
2026-07-17 13:59 ` Sasha Levin
2026-07-17 14:09 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260717145447.GH6843@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=ksummit@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=liam@infradead.org \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.