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

["Chuck Lever" <cel@kernel.org>]

Hello James,

On Thu, Feb 5, 2026, at 5:40 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-02-05 at 17:40 +0100, Haris Iqbal wrote:
> [...]
>> It is an interesting proposal, but I feel the problem statement
>> overlaps with some other, already being discussed, or covered topics.
>> For example, the topic of fixes requiring effort and time of the
>> maintainer/reviewer, and the fact that AI now potentially leads to
>> too many such fixes is being discussed in the following link,
>> 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit/20251114183528.1239900-1-dave.hansen@linux.intel.com/#t
>
> They are actually pretty orthogonal.  The email is about identifying AI
> tools used in submission.  I may suspect the uptick in the fixes is due
> to the use of AI, but I don't really care.  The problem isn't what tool
> you used it's that the risk vs benefit of actually fixing the driver
> isn't favourable.

Agreed, the fire hose of patches that a maintainer has to deal with
is a perennial problem, no matter the source of the patches.

Seems to me that benefits/cost analysis is part of patch review. But
when using AI for review, you can ask it to do an initial analysis
for you, rather than legislating contributor behavior (over which you
have no control).


-- 
Chuck Lever