From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 6F68C1E1DEC; Mon, 4 Aug 2025 23:30:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754350244; cv=none; b=oSDvjAialRLxGo/0o98dEl8N6ijQWjKWfJFd3Ec3PwJMKjKv4VnQ8ZCqPxw1sFwSsqDmGM4krGpUdlgEIWBDpnt49JhSafjWOFoZCrlCbht82UWq9TckExPSYv2HPSah1fvJ5MtBAWyGr7pP2TeaYvRyWRbGe8Ie1KmZ45cUbm8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754350244; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NYjzkyjb84ln5UC1RkC1zUZJoWNYCApeTT/I1dkOym8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=egRieDhdD699zkq6Ee4gHCvpNAddA0vLdBidggHaIIRP6dJKkOAj92XlCa/8OOzFibAuV4VuBr70acbFdOFPNMKrZ510OOkMFZ8dOW5lcAGic2hFi5JgKotzKIwAqF473JW0rRFP7lx3hrNhwkQDWMJ8El8q/LCRvbRHCCESRjU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=vF1k560N; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="vF1k560N" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85E9DC4CEE7; Mon, 4 Aug 2025 23:30:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754350243; bh=NYjzkyjb84ln5UC1RkC1zUZJoWNYCApeTT/I1dkOym8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=vF1k560N5yjLb2CTzkSN+C/4SKi1wFqN/OSe1Z5mctBEopx1U6ISqTWRaJNQpZOns /PIbKYVRtDxPB2HKjbqZgcb3sT/0rqTp+MrG73RN1u2YuQW5YZgLWKTgnU3EdiqQEE l6onp8tf8n0r0v4tJ8VdryQL+tlkD8DuVrB/TyIXN8rAoFm6wwqr5fpXp5ox5jOgy8 qAD7Pe3P5jE1fXEUc4flmxFY5ZOTaLQT/DYNbLZzb//YsMIhbhXwqaIvs8OF2XtZ13 cmgV+AudnUPO3LDNZMQdrYpbmwps+viu1XbUQxLloAbfvIbYYaFC6Hzsp8dwqUZHTX a+FqOHrsI9CCw== Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 19:30:41 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: dan.j.williams@intel.com Cc: Steven Rostedt , Jiri Kosina , Michal Hocko , David Hildenbrand , Greg KH , Vlastimil Babka , corbet@lwn.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, kees@kernel.org, konstantin@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent coding assistant configuration to Linux kernel Message-ID: References: <75d86e96-cb18-4996-998c-da7ac0e97468@suse.cz> <9afd157a-296d-4f4d-9d65-07b89ab3906f@redhat.com> <2025072832-enrich-pampers-54b9@gregkh> <1bd04ce1-87c0-4e23-b155-84f7235f6072@redhat.com> <20250804181447.0c518b14@gandalf.local.home> <689139fe23f49_55f0910076@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <689139fe23f49_55f0910076@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch> On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 03:53:50PM -0700, dan.j.williams@intel.com wrote: >Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 00:03:29 +0200 (CEST) >> Jiri Kosina wrote: >> >> > Al made a very important point somewhere earlier in this thread. >> > >> > The most important (from the code quality POV) thing is -- is there a >> > person that understands the patch enough to be able to answer questions >> > (coming from some other human -- most likely reviewer/maintainer)? >> > >> > That's not something that'd be reflected in DCO, but it's very important >> > fact for the maintainer's decision process. >> >> Perhaps this is what needs to be explicitly stated in the SubmittingPatches >> document. >> >> I know we can't change the DCO, but could we add something about our policy >> is that if you submit code, you certify that you understand said code, even >> if (especially) it was produced by AI? > >It is already the case that human developed code is not always >understood by the submitter (i.e. bugs, or see occasions of "no >functional changes intended" commits referenced by "Fixes:"). It is also >already the case that the speed at which code is applied has a component >of maintainer's trust in the submitter to stick around and address >issues or work with the community. > >AI allows production of plausible code in higher volumes, but it does >not fundamentally change the existing dynamic of development velocity vs >trust. Right: I think that the issue Jiri brought up is a human problem, not a tooling problem. We can try and tackle a symptom, but it's a losing war. >So an expectation that is worth clarifying is that mere appearance of >technical correctness is not sufficient to move a proposal forward. The >details of what constitutes sufficient trust are subsystem, maintainer, >or even per-function specific. This is a nuanced expectation that human >submitters struggle, let alone AI. > >"Be prepared to declare a confidence interval in every detail of a patch >series, especially any AI generated pieces." Something along the lines of a Social Credit system for the humans behind the keyboard? :) Do we want to get there? Do we not? -- Thanks, Sasha