From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 5951A42BC31 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 03:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784087715; cv=none; b=Gh+STV/mLtSFjOMLvmf0fL5eVmPwZj4dADL3YaC2GlZ7YSiBrPJh0laD6MfSTSbVh0KcjHSnERcd7ddJnXsxWqkAXB3FtZCkLGY2+Cia4PUtILr7dOMJTrhwyD83v/CKpZFzPhLWD+/l7mr3+gAlqwHiTQ2fkzzh1KdAlMU+OYk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784087715; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8GjgzIXl4pxPDDGr4ttSd3nXDn1BDzymua78QqTJ1mg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lZ9uPZIpNXpV/c+FEtW3wpTzCy3PxmFdN0pPqf5YwCziWU+NF9gtt7JhWK1zlv025qR7Kvhu1MjHD8ybKKIldGS2PRshnzF1+UZiCUgGDNuhG6LgM1Q1jNAvXfsksAbMyk/lOjoazJfKGVmQqvQrBnL5nzntEK9wUFhBdtp5410= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=g8YgpTyp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 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) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="g8YgpTyp" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org ([151.240.45.93]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 66F3shI3019517 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:54:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1784087690; bh=1uaDmlH3VcSYOBfyuK/hv85WYrfR4T7ZoGOuOKs2I8Q=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=g8YgpTypcybUB8iapIzS/rKXRFaKWqGaGqkLPSjXiFNzMvJi9x5FG8DSwMCq8+dO/ F3wfqTW1Iu6MUHNS4Ptx8CbzqCw04zMk6aTWqrdoq9ey1iIfLmyOfpCKaOA5ex088c jLBcH2y3LmWbqsX1K6zxr/IDWWh6trP+PYFQ8UW0eU7+0BRX4DODFAgVuFeZ5ztS2P vvvzJdtITaKaWE62CY3JRJdKb3be7iraFN8T2fVk8T2Kv0d8wiXGNLFvJ68j0zNqHI dFwHe87fDSL1/rPpnUsiCzfIMYuoruZlU5StpF7o3+TVjEwUKW7nTjGLM1+L5Q3fLV iXO6iQfQJdMkg== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 425D0A211F6; Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:54:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 23:54:43 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Roman Gushchin , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , 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: 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> 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> 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