From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lamorak.hansenpartnership.com (lamorak.hansenpartnership.com [198.37.111.173]) (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 6D2BD41DDF2 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 12:42:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.37.111.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784119383; cv=none; b=dUumM38H+OF1AQlnMfC246o5aT1cgtrYE5xp1wmTeSmziAPR8Yur/twwx4SwhhomAY7mtzg1xrbcAcIRMxB8+O4i2THSPTjOYnsuOed+raxlqO61H7uMMM5KHo3rcPZqF3r4kxhGOuKv5BVKD57prxUtfQ0bWgB3u9AWQ3gTfuQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784119383; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Wktn0t60DmP/XWWTtwrr7ElxboBf4c6LxMeYSe10ack=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=MMuHwoFgTYIFjocCys/4Qy/qRmH2HyauFzYHccy0ShjylyWhHS3qV5R0WVg1W2D+sBrzhp7hSlnb7xdFg35ZsetibzGf1Q8ftYx6tECJMAJYpGMVmDeQ5DuYfIj2lo0s8OuM1eHJuz4FOT+hOzqMgHc0KgNYjP4rgfMt7AJBjq8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=HansenPartnership.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=HansenPartnership.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b=FKA2/goc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.37.111.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=HansenPartnership.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=HansenPartnership.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="FKA2/goc" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1784119375; bh=Wktn0t60DmP/XWWTtwrr7ElxboBf4c6LxMeYSe10ack=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=FKA2/goc5JRXd2ARNR7xpJlktDrXXAcH09st95+s30mM3NiOh8nK9fdX5boQB+Ujm +8gnkfSzUq7fqsNsAjnvYPk2Ox/jI1DQz2gCfJFaC7J7UkGBBUFr0jBNO2hbUPurfz +uV5gYa6Kf3P98wN+kA26hLMATxVlzfi9x7PndlA= Received: from lingrow.int.hansenpartnership.com (unknown [IPv6:2601:5c4:4300:d341::8c71]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519MLKEM768 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lamorak.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9627A1C00F6; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 08:42:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <460bb8002edc009194dcc0ad68a0538e5df6bfb5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko? From: James Bottomley To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Theodore Tso Cc: Laurent Pinchart , Roman Gushchin , Derek Barbosa , Matthieu Baerts , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Jason Gunthorpe , Steven Rostedt , users@kernel.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Stephen Finucane Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 08:42:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20260715091349.2094a0ec@foz.lan> References: <20260607195656.02788791@foz.lan> <20260710074528.5a6e4457@foz.lan> <20260710083845.23c753ca@foz.lan> <87wlv2jq4t.fsf@linux.dev> <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> Autocrypt: addr=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com; keydata=mQENBE58FlABCADPM714lRLxGmba4JFjkocqpj1/6/Cx+IXezcS22azZetzCXDpm2MfNE lecY3qkFjfnoffQiw5rrOO0/oRSATOh8+2fmJ6el7naRbDuh+i8lVESfdlkoqX57H5R8h/UTIp6gn 1mpNlxjQv6QSZbl551zQ1nmkSVRbA5TbEp4br5GZeJ58esmYDCBwxuFTsSsdzbOBNthLcudWpJZHU RfMc0ew24By1nldL9F37AktNcCipKpC2U0NtGlJjYPNSVXrCd1izxKmO7te7BLP+7B4DNj1VRnaf8 X9+VIApCi/l4Kdx+ZR3aLTqSuNsIMmXUJ3T8JRl+ag7kby/KBp+0OpotABEBAAG0N0phbWVzIEJvd HRvbWxleSA8SmFtZXMuQm90dG9tbGV5QEhhbnNlblBhcnRuZXJzaGlwLmNvbT6JAVgEEwEIAEICGw MGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAhkBFiEE1WBuc8i0YnG+rZrfgUrkfCFIVNYFAml2ZBI FCS3GUMIACgkQgUrkfCFIVNZKjQf/deRzlXZClKxTC/Ee2yEPqqS7mm/INUA49KdQQ5oIhSxkUBy0 9J4qjMIo5F8ZFkFTqikBqeL35LKu7O7rn8WETfX8Bxvos3HUsl3jHo34DES4MUFIpoQPgtiLRGwLb K0cVCAArR2u2qj4ABmTRrs1I1kvdjEw6gatOuXtEe/j5O2fvfzTq9GBr0Q3n2IAsFXi4hLlx6VPE8 tyWUZ8BWJKtih3JAeUiXFvASL3McV0rV9RnU0VbjEQEhSE7PMYhWpnDC9AyBb0lXJllQRvC3NSkUB 8KVQgNNxRPss0WE/nBoZ4dFA42jTyzTz8lNylxZoAWV7WJb3QxVg4oCodRVrxxrQhSmFtZXMgQm90 dG9tbGV5IDxqZWpiQGtlcm5lbC5vcmc+iQFVBBMBCAA/AhsDBgsJCAcDAgYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeA QIXgBYhBNVgbnPItGJxvq2a34FK5HwhSFTWBQJgS5mYBQkbNYS9AAoJEIFK5HwhSFTWBpwIAL5Bk3 5FB34U6iHmDzzgdCbxLTs43T/YQyJpcGIvopBvnI/fDY8oSG6Df64/O6B+1R+A8TDp6ZG5ysUWnCC 6GuIaEHemBYkitMPglR6+sGCMQY7O0mlsPvdssvKK1KI9Bno4VU6ogaF2qVzefSqg1Djmf/DcsxWP rI/jdJ8FB5AYR2rjIdDFc+zRdAJuavo1/anyY2wgpFh/3R8IOYAEfWV9nGgYkf9+tA4EIn1sxE0I3 L5oW2N3mbyRrkzuBwO8ztMCwqEPk7moWzhokcZqMXiAIahaZdkashJC+s2X2RZSGCy+g+pvY5NN4B BVG5XwLgVBqbHMTcxE0fbmPqz+q6O0LEphbWVzIEJvdHRvbWxleSA8amVqYkBoYW5zZW5wYXJ0bmV yc2hpcC5jb20+iQFXBBMBCABBFiEE1WBuc8i0YnG+rZrfgUrkfCFIVNYFAmODZ5ACGwMFCRs1hL0F CwkIBwICIgIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgcCF4AACgkQgUrkfCFIVNZu0Af/TzvL2/NdgAcw9uN3x60H8 jc4QUq14VpxcFEFEMpcj1morkX/G93V+56HBBaXZj+yK8PhxIA/SIz+sU7C/0YvKuvzakP8ZX/7WJ e32SOUtjfr/VTaqjIBzNj6OxLvZpmNbBw7s6DwhhNpHOWqJ/1ml+PtDRDV71IB58yVqQjp1xlNKVl ZppcJ5908EJzsFnRIVjiQiDSKoppqB2BCibBbrWcln7CiWMyOC/cco6SIn6twH+f7+aivJ3xGcOE2 a9gBKF5rNi9TBoX9oyPmshv/TDmnohsVrH7AYXlGYfZTk15SWEiROh1QX8/uD9wl/gcIv5EDUpT/F L2jzOsA5663bw== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 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: >=20 > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 03:59:09AM -0500, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > I believe we should follow the first two recommendations of the > > > Software Freedom Conservancy on using LLM-backed generative AI > > > systems for FOSS contributions ([1]). > > >=20 > > > [1] > > > https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recomme= ndations.html > > > =C2=A0 > >=20 > > It's not clear to me that the SFC document is particularly > > applicable for the use of LLM's beyond the use case of generating > > code which is contributed to FOSS projects. >=20 > Agreed: the document there is about AI-generated code ("Generative > AI"), not about patch review. In a narrow construction, possibly. But broadly it seems to be a charter for the rights of people to ignore AI absolutely and how they should interact with people who use it: that does have applicability to AI reviews. > > 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. > >=20 > > Consider the first recommendation, "The FOSS community should > > support, not just tolerate, those who outright reject LLM-gen-AI > > systems."=C2=A0 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? > >=20 > > 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.=C2=A0 What does it mean to "support somone who outright rejects th= e > > 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). Regards, James