From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792524200; b=iQXs07z1W3rmkYW4PWFGmRXiSrMxbI4P3I0zWMGeNLCxabDB85sL0RLpViZpLH9LN2ZB hOGIoUmfGKI9A60gzRtB164WYktb2PLLRA+jBEYUc9lRhZDsG8I3vev16UReAZ+hrQViR CZmcjUoRVQY02DXmlW8l88uQGe4WxJsx2hrTtBrCNFTJL9TxqO4SL3g+EQcWphBgBVtOe 41nNiTwG/IqkZQUFD+QlzNjmGI6voc/lOMYZ7BH4SgDVCRDAfOzQi4RKImU3XAMCrFcfC /vf3fTY9k8QJAQFDdY4lw+Tltt8p72rDw0qDH/Ixprp7DvlQa0trUHn2WOECOzJ/lLg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792524200; h=DMARC-Filter:Received:DKIM-Signature:Received:Date:From:To:Cc: Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=ecJRnmsGDrswKKbM9tgD0g5icgr2nRYdzA8EYWFt8/w=; b=zB+mZIf451aCh8/XiRdkExlhrnz8ttBg8XNypvV2qQqfxj4aWLjGIaQsYNKVbDiaygmn kKftHKR15fsTBSW388kNt5Sinol7wCSM5p5QTWVuKZvcR+gUR7XdDLpzGoJj7dgIwRvoR zKfIBsmmQ1VtlVtizppWxolZEQhmDxcLgnzmWafToClfDkoqyBsB+UBIYrjmFskTqoU9j mJSYa06JwUXQVZMS/T4iwJGKQ7Wr1dVUSWu5zWZIdfCrncLG7NgXKEn0CUAnYMMY2xj+O XquOozzHlZN7svRbSNAmoiZNCg426IvG6Oxcy3PtZU54xU9nRzfrPmpM57pqSxmV6Tw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=outgoing header.b=Cn6SQiDu; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=18.9.28.11 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B08AC606A327 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 19:23:19 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org B08AC606A327 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, unprotected) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=outgoing header.b=Cn6SQiDu Received: from macsyma.thunk.org (pool-173-48-113-115.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.113.115]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 69KJMx2Z010428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:23:00 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1792524183; bh=ecJRnmsGDrswKKbM9tgD0g5icgr2nRYdzA8EYWFt8/w=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Cn6SQiDuMOpqDp/CKc46vYNbtAUxhTewiR9fhncF4UC0TT88puQo+iHtQkof4w1eH 4PTR5ePt0IOMdEiZTCh7WczB+GLuUhQAo6GA0T488KGB+B1eSu9UE/T0onv0amMmjm DhrYrD2HAeqaCAbt4CjrjAUwkT5KMBpzGumM/AXBGhVPTXG0SXk9I8mItjiB3mOT5H CQYovQZYSrBn59uhCENogQvK/Ho6HkFnkQB5KFBQF6p1ieho8S7dDpGNjtXPEDcCN8 8/I/fr9Z3l1Tusl0sxSJbkzAJgxtaPXbkzWSiKG4Znnl+kKo2jLO4iLk8T8XnjEuAB pgd96o+iD0s0w== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 7B1CC21C5058; Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:21:59 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Bart Van Assche Cc: johannes.goede@oss.qualcomm.com, Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, sashiko@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: Patch pre-submission to Sashiko Message-ID: References: <3354ebda-5158-489b-a577-5cb10e5d5fb0@oss.qualcomm.com> <2fef166e-088d-4ffe-8d0a-0143aebc1b26@acm.org> X-Mailing-List: sashiko@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2fef166e-088d-4ffe-8d0a-0143aebc1b26@acm.org> On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 07:20:53AM -0500, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > Does the requirement to run a local LLM raise the barrier to start with > kernel coding? What I was proposing was an expectation that *if* you are using an LLM to do kernel coding, best practices would include requiring the LLM performing the agentic coding loop to do the following: * Validate the commit using checkpatch * Do a test compile * Run any relevant kunit or kselftests * Run the commit via an Agentic review system and maybe even: * Add a kunit test covering any changes made by the agentically generated code. If someone wants to send a 100% human-crafted code, today we strongly suggest (but don't absolutely require) that people at least run checkpatch, and to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest (with apologies to Thomas Cranmer) the rules in SubmittingPatches. I've in the past requested that people at *least* run "kvm-xfstests smoke", but that hasn't been particularly successful. Should we ask that human code contributors do more, such as running kunit tests? Perhaps. Given that code contributors vastly outnumber maintainers and reviewerrs, it seems that anything we can do to request that people generating load on the maintainers and reviewers take at least some steps to make our lives easier. - Ted P.S. Ideally I'd love it if we could ask people to run either "kvm-xfstests -c ext4/4k -g auto" for all ext4 patches, but that would take 1-2 hours on their development machine, or run "gce-xfstests -c ext4/4k -g auto", but that would require that they have a Google Compute Engine account and be willing to spend $0.25 USD. That's probably unreasonable, but a maintainer can dream. :-)