From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 9490B3AEF49 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:15:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784135728; cv=none; b=uFx66VtP5yYFFwzTX+qtB5ew++LBWLAZU1Ix1hw8Rjuy6uYlDh5vl+dm9BTcgxfHJLLe7ggResq7Ojk6kYRuZjZrLDyTDD5TVU+W7sacKFZead/APGea+i5WCeDltrq7xCSnMvIWndgI+y5ClnnuZ00JFhgMJqtyNQgCyWhha74= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784135728; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jgrjtnUlepLmDTk9jJGlmbx9EOD70c1fXRuZS93lDKg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=O7Q35AxT3nZtIeB5SF8Gvd0ev93rVUhAljTlAiQI/T1/dK4uuGGhroRyy3n+S5vqPBfz7Xd9NzHmrPIhsm8We9wRA0aus35TAzNCv3Iwx3NGeB355pFrUqy3Kvsihu6k+6QyHmAdFCwz3pyW50WwKt5dJ2fiMx3Q12OMSAmKTCs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=aMdDAxL/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="aMdDAxL/" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org ([151.240.45.27]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 66FHEvfI023544 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:14:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1784135701; bh=NfNVE1/OD36Hn2NGt6W/NSdsYcdTQq6dj4bpB21MVT4=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=aMdDAxL/E63qW3PVHKVYPMZAHHptpjztHclve4e+BUzgI4AFyD4QtBe0+lOLd4wOp rKC2rdFYukUFroQJdkMjScj4iu7wzhNuqTgZvbVwK+4aAYpLpBctzOMhydLzGRdVKv t6jbi29ADvrRAKzFrevzuvHi7WQvhcCkx403nVZvlyMhZIVmBgwU8da24edtcu5edB Xbjtip3WYPSzmH5Wt5QX40VeR1TTzLAN6gi2RLrYStDLVBkTR5q0duu32KOL3n9FcD tAmN3tL3OCQUBz27HjtGGKQ53svn1dwLObmCjpeEFp2bRkbvIa5GWR0Aj60QibxBKE DxyD4brUoknmg== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 8761CA2F3E9; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:14:57 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Roman Gushchin , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , 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: References: <20260710074528.5a6e4457@foz.lan> <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> 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260715161111.GC1778116@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 07:11:11PM -0500, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > My interpretation (which conveniently matches my opinion) is that > developers should not be forced to directly *use* generative AI tools, > and should not be forced to *process* unfiltered output of those tools. But maintaineres should be forced to process the output of those tools because the developers refuses to do that work? If someone refuses to use the unfiltered otuput of those tools, and their code *is* buggy, I may not have time to cater to these people. In which case, if I see that their code is reliably buggy, and they are refusing to look at the review from the LLM (or the zero-day kernel bot, or checkpatch.pl), I reserve the right to just start ignoring patches from those people. > > I don't think I have called for that. What I believe is that triaging > LLM reviews should not be forced onto contributors. I don't believe that triaging LLM revoews should be forced onto the maintainers. Remember, the contributors outnumber the maintainers, so forcing more work on maintainers don't scale. One of the reasons why I was so excited for Sashiko is that it reduced the load on maintainers, while improving the quality of patch reviews. > 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. Nope; but I don't believe I'm obliged to accept contributions from people who feel that way.... - Ted