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 F3D803D1CAE for ; Sat, 18 Jul 2026 16:15:53 +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=1784391359; cv=none; b=h61lhUOmavB2Fb/+V3MROhtd8rjnUbeyHt1Wk5y74vC61lWsnznT3RGwZxeF+MfqyApcBm69Vwb2dHu5SNbCrsTZ2pXS75zy5IU0+R3DzxwrmT3+/2AQk0J3nm0Nf5cRm0ZZWKgGfP9j/RWB5naoRv5NhS0HXOqqQj0i8E4uGXE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784391359; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mZW4f6cd6b1pGOmEikO0yalD6KQWpLA4oqeapyaECLo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=dThBD4Xxw3ieNHEnUUCfih+oyLbupSz284Q7QAowfrcMbDuQQBzXn0ViSg8Cjw4qaI02zpId2QNpXDcLionGrK1XxrXkad9DLeA9X7hbW8E0ilyKoyRBdqdQT2jtrlX+Mxrd5H8hB/MI18b55SQFHihvnql5YcaRtM4FO8vFNFs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=nBalUNwz; 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="nBalUNwz" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F5341F000E9; Sat, 18 Jul 2026 16:15:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784391350; bh=bsrwJUPA9rqLDM9LG5/fTiWbprEu0ff/qCpjMd2Qe3M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=nBalUNwzgfR78dp1AOQJc1rj8SakCeb+Xd4kBLIf7j/TuzvllDB83XrUanmMRidtg cJ1tJOCb8VWJqeD9a3RP3z7rLQmyzBBE8omqGP3DEhad7bE3FhkhEeaOY/7yl7hrkC fGf0nh5gj1MVYvpYPabyBZpsat7wtcixhIKrlqri1xyKsVC3FDUeX9ktMjI5ZcuHL0 obgdhV4X3L93AKChM1tR+/73EzK/KwIek/rpNIL6oZM/SCgHvdNIK1Kgeyj8JxiXYK Hpy/+xXyoc9Oql4XXKoa9PHjjlzoU57qzSvkw1Q3JPKXUD9x2ZmieG3PK8K7Cg14Yh gTKUVE8/z0SOg== From: SJ Park To: Guenter Roeck Cc: SJ Park , Linus Torvalds , Laurent Pinchart , Roman Gushchin , Jason Gunthorpe , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] The place of AI code review in the Linux Kernel process Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2026 09:15:41 -0700 Message-ID: <20260718161542.82772-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 07:14:02 -0700 Guenter Roeck wrote: [...] > I do not expect patch authors to fix pre-existing issues in my > scope of responsibility, though I appreciate it if they do it. > I actually asked Roman if it would be possible to add a per-subsystem > prompt to Sashiko's reply. That would let me inform authors that > I do not mandate fixing such issues. I agree such customized review could make it more clear and helpful. But I also concern if it could make Sashiko reply unnecessarily verbose. Especially when a patch is toucing multiple subsystems. In my humble opinion, it is a common sense not asking patch contributors to fix pre-exising issues. Of course it depends, but that's what requires and deserves additional discussions in my opinion. If subsystem-specific rules are really required, maybe we can use subsystem maintainer profile document? For example, DAMON maintainer profile has a section [1] for AI review. And I now realize the document is quite outdated, though. [1] https://origin.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/mm/damon/maintainer-profile.html#ai-review Thanks, SJ [...]