From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E47EECA5FFF for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2026 08:52:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xENFl-0000ZI-0E; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 04:43:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xEIvv-0000lC-3E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 00:07:13 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xEIvp-0005cY-5C for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 00:07:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1791346022; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=lCvmPtQZGBan/hL2hr9DcE0dQa7qoGMCEUgmDFkhnho=; b=RjxsWVo1a06q0FSUHl8ZXveBBBGEqIsjxJcYZxebO5VhmH5oCbXTiESloXYdbFHG1NJG9W Fm1n44WLx+VxIWDS88qmJfRFgWqH+kADqyGdBRbtNhN+TAKQqDGBVuMuPr/JXYVqv0bC45 /BW9ar9xV7BiLwceTzFkWxGQNre04m8= Received: from mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-29--AiVHn6XOzOgK06I6-wlrA-1; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 11:49:51 +0000 X-MC-Unique: -AiVHn6XOzOgK06I6-wlrA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: -AiVHn6XOzOgK06I6-wlrA_1791287390 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68CE9195423A; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 11:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.44.48.53]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF3881956042; Tue, 6 Oct 2026 11:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2026 13:49:43 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf To: Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= Cc: Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= , BALATON Zoltan , Paolo Bonzini , Peter Maydell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Alistair Francis , Fabiano Rosas , Warner Losh , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] docs/devel: relax policy on AI-generated contributions Message-ID: References: <20260930085433.830743-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20260930085433.830743-2-pbonzini@redhat.com> <69164823-7271-4d59-9684-637bec454a1d@redhat.com> <293cb972-35e1-1922-0834-601e2491a7a6@eik.bme.hu> <87mrsrjh8a.fsf@draig.linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=kwolf@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: 10 X-Spam_score: 1.0 X-Spam_bar: + X-Spam_report: (1.0 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.24, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Am 06.10.2026 um 11:56 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 10:44:37AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Kevin Wolf writes: > > > > > Am 05.10.2026 um 23:09 hat BALATON Zoltan geschrieben: > > >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > >> > I agree completely with how you phrased the first and third. I agree > > >> > that the second bullet is a risk too, but it's mitigated by "LLM-created > > >> > contributions will be held to a higher standard than human-created ones, > > >> > because LLMs make it easier to write tests" (and by maintainers being > > >> > able to > > >> > > >> Tests need to be reviewed too to be able to trust them so that does not help > > >> against overloading reviewers with generated patches but burdens them even > > >> more: they will also have to review the tests before the code. > > > > > > The required level of trust for tests is comparatively low, so it's much > > > easier to review tests to a sufficient level than say device emulation > > > code. > > > > > > If a new test looks plausible, fails before the fix and passes > > > afterwards, it's more useful that what we had before, even if it's > > > technically buggy in some corner case. > > > > And also easier to rip out in the unlikely event it infringes anything. > > > > But broadly having a test* is better than having no test. > > > > * modulo the effects on our coverage. > > The maintability of test code is really important too, just as much > as the code being tested. Every test potentially constrains how we > can change code in future as tests themselves are never perfect or > exhaustive and often take short-cuts in their design to suit the > current testing needs. As we enhance the code under test, the test > suite needs to evolve with it and that requires that we understand > the test code and why it is doing what it is doing. > > A test spat out by AI which is a string of 20 undocumented qtest > commands may fail before the fix and pass afterwards, but that > test is not automatically a win if we don't understand why the test > is doing what it is doing - it becomes a burden for long term maint. That's the "looks plausible" part. It's really not a lot of work to recognise that a test is just 20 undocumented qtest commands. Kevin