Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Documenting the correct pushback on AI inspired (and other) fixes in older drivers

[Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2026, James Bottomley wrote:

> To set the stage, we in SCSI have seen an uptick in patches to older
> drivers mostly fixing missing free (data leak) and data race problems.
> I'm not even sure they're all AI found, but we don't really need to
> know that. 

If I may predict the next scene, by extrapolating only a little, we are 
approaching the point where it will be feasible to request that an AI 
simply generate a new driver, based on chip datasheets plus all of the 
open source drivers available for training, rather than patch the bugs in 
an existing driver.

At that point, what use is a maintainer? I think we can still add value if 
we are able to leverage our ability and experience in validating such code 
i.e. prove its correctness somehow. If we can do that, then the codebase 
we presently call Linux might continue to grow because it would remain 
superior than some AI-generated alternative codebase.

Documentation that would raise the bar for patch submissions seems like a 
band-aid. The basic complaint seems to be that minor fixes have become 
cheaper and easier to produce, overwhelming reviewers. The solution has to 
be, make code review cheaper and more effective i.e. fight fire with fire.