Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko?

["Theodore Tso" <tytso@mit.edu>]

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]).
> 
> [1] https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recommendations.html

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.

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 expect maintainers who want to act on sashiko reviews to triage and
> verify them first before bothering authors

As a maintainer, I don't believe I should be forced to rephrase a
Sashiko report just because a patch author "outright rejects" LLM's.
For that matter, I don't believe I'm obliged to accept patches from
someone who forces me to do extra work because they refuse to look at
Sashiko reviews....

How do we balance the needs and time of maintainers with patch
authors?  I don't think it's obvious that we *MUST* bend over
backwards to oblige the needs of all patch authors.

Regards,

						- Ted