From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 9CF492BE65F for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:09:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784135378; cv=none; b=PEcf1o99rsaocBIUzHG9GpLgCCu/2WBmAu9vOHO5PB261aFvmohZuO5HMMNCNQDjCADpZkNhPyEiGfYZdEknsoSDlnLGqAn5/zlxLNlT+bBwnjs9egQg6uupKqln2AnEbqbQdNyx8FAlulWMkpW4BjjjoJiWSD8gYVCcfkOiFnc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784135378; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mzw3hBV7t/aw/0xVudmYaTIyfRsE9p97qUnrjhOc364=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dJyT64xxAz9ZqYza9DwEntE8Lu3OV4RDEoXs2ezggXrPwB426csTAApExCAMJb8V5rNOS8i8fMElUCPNBRJn7RWeyuvMx6z4c7IsdA+X+eSmFb7wrvkQcYYSUI8M4itSeeFFHvWxvlkvBiYdPWhW0RBC2YY8zEfGj+KLfO+XWhs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=I7dLtLnp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="I7dLtLnp" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68818104C; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 19:08:38 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1784135318; bh=mzw3hBV7t/aw/0xVudmYaTIyfRsE9p97qUnrjhOc364=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=I7dLtLnpeicQunG/IQ006w0sfIN+W3HMVL2gwDNXXbaiQps4B4on9x2TK+1eHoK5j zPvLMZ8AqskOOkutYE4sj8S64k5xCPaSu2UqHm8OEBvCwh04vhiVkFGnBLYNYOqhOV 7sYING5F0OgLkb3QuWz5rP9DkdDdf4PxelbdmuEg= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 20:09:32 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: James Bottomley Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Theodore Tso , Roman Gushchin , 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: <20260715170932.GB1735001@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260713095538.3d5e86f1@foz.lan> <20260713094120.GD1127719@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260713220427.582b28bf@foz.lan> <7ia4mrvtrxjl.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260715091349.2094a0ec@foz.lan> <460bb8002edc009194dcc0ad68a0538e5df6bfb5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20260715161840.GD1778116@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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 12:53:47PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2026-07-15 at 19:18 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 08:42:54AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Wed, 2026-07-15 at 09:13 +0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:54:43 -0400 "Theodore Tso" wrote: > [...] > > > > > Things get a lot more complicated when we're considering the > > > > > use of LLM's to (a) review code, (b) automate the analysis of a > > > > > bug report or stack trace, or (c) automate backporting a patch > > > > > to LTS kernel. > > > > > > > > > > Consider the first recommendation, "The FOSS community should > > > > > support, not just tolerate, those who outright reject LLM-gen- > > > > > AI systems."  If someone rejects LLM-gen-AI systems, and the > > > > > LTS kernel contains patches which are automated backported, and > > > > > they object, are we bound to forswear the use of automated > > > > > backport technologies? > > > > > > > > > > What if someone reports a bug with a kernel stack trace, and > > > > > someone uses an LLM agent to analyze their bug report and find > > > > > a fix.  What does it mean to "support somone who outright > > > > > rejects the use of LLM-gen-AI systems" in that case? > > > > > > I think it's simpler than that: The contributor doesn't get to > > > approve the tools the maintainer uses to assess and apply patches.  > > > If there's AI in there and the contributor is an AI luddite, then > > > the patch doesn't get applied (i.e. your right to ignore AI stops > > > when it infringes others' right to use it). > > > > I don't think anyone instructed any maintainer to stop using those > > tools to assess patches. > > Well, AI replies to patches were the discussion. That is part of a > maintainer assessment (at least if sashiko replies with a problem to > SCSI patches I ignore the patch until the submitter either fixes the > issue or explains why it is wrong). > > > On a side note, I find the formulation "contributor *is* an AI > > luddite" gets close to an ad hominem attack. I assume it wasn't your > > intention. Given how heated this topic is, focussing on people's > > actions instead of their nature could help making the discussion more > > productive (if that's at all possible on a mailing list). > > It's a common and neutral dictionary term to mean someone opposed to > change: > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/luddite It was the conjunction with *is* in that formulation that triggered me (and before anyone sends a meme involving Bill Clinton: pleast don't). It puts people in boxes and that doesn't help discussions. But we're digressing, I don't think this is worth debating here. > If we avoid all words which originally had negative origins because the > origins might cause offence to some, you'll find a long list of > everyday words: > > https://www.mentalfloss.com/language/words/13-words-changed-negative-positive-or-vice-versa > > Although I personally would love to support banning the word "Dude" in > silicon valley on grounds of original negative connotation ... :-D -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart