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 EEF3981AA8 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 15:32:23 +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=1784215944; cv=none; b=Xsl5GqBbI1WQHgiCLVMHCI19vLKCcY2U6uFLHoc91046uFrCpxAuF3AEJ7p0tMya6Pn3e5ErL//7hmmfGGbM6C/jwsLgfLjD2WLd7Wyah+ZPSK+L0wYJJX1YuRrQFToZCD5pjllPvG3FiTnDpjPaglyi5CHpxCBYXNFCDuWScsE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784215944; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5qhLMQ+tZ1fI26ZIKsIrZigKMaUXQkO17XloO/vjkzo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lfKMADbzQF1ttTgp1DFkVv6+HR845PkOrjKfsewvPPyJE4vBLMKxerfnpkSFzIjvOqxBwV7DRzr+zeZ8vmKlE0mIAbNCgunlnXN7rCZetYwXG5t2k0XEzRwsW3cdneb8YpWibkLksmk5s/i4jbw4QOyXKnHL2B8TShWgmyXhYZ4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=KAwBahfK; 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="KAwBahfK" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 183CA1F000E9; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 15:32:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784215943; bh=4rxyA9LGsk7gJodFWT6Fx04U7MlQ8XqOYrZWwSy8Ick=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=KAwBahfK8Ny7E3ATQ6sNGWk7D0JKU5mSyT+umE5wiqPS8l3lPIrCkXoIaKk6MqSRd A0sga/9mwLFgcoyvI+mDmKAqQiIqjEH9GT9VHQ73fgLQqGd/Cjzsb3Vj6E2D+zNefj a9V97KfO9v+jExVvY0t9x0vwQGAY5imI58LT/mBInce3PYQ5E+SWDh+fzCIus6GX2k PQnTdruIhBOSQnLXldL+oyvd33xfcYnjqITsYllgmwMt9emRcPij0mLOz8M45ZbBXO xCNJMlWpBT8IceG2VG/IoM4idq2AbUEgtUFu8EO6lHENgeL6nw0KOTxt7wgHFrYBxY eefspiXI4zk5w== Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:32:21 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Miguel Ojeda Cc: Roman Gushchin , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] The place of AI code review in the Linux Kernel process Message-ID: References: <7ia4qzl45h20.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> 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; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 07:51:33PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: >On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 6:55 PM Roman Gushchin wrote: >> >> * Review of LTS patches and kernel releases. > >For the backporting case, I think this could help, and there are >certain things we could ask for, i.e. custom prompts. > >It may also have less noise, in the sense that the AI has the original >commit in mainline as a baseline, i.e. it is not a completely new >patch of unknown quality. > >I imagine Sasha et al. have experience with this. I currently utilize AI to review backports that are being sent to stable@, which has helped with catching many issues that would otherwise be just merged in the LTS trees. One piece that is missing is identifying whether a patch is correct when cherry-picked to an older tree. I've been (very slowly due to time constraints) working on extending Sashiko to help with this. You can see an example of that work here: http://20.172.224.249:51261/#/backports But I definitely need to sync more time into this. -- Thanks, Sasha