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

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Fri, 2026-02-06 at 09:57 +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> 
> 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.

Seems possible, but do we care?  For a driver we don't have, I think
we'd be reasonably happy to try out an AI generated one, assuming
there's a maintainer who has hardware to test.  For existing drivers, I
think AI rewrites (even in rust) would be rejected.

> 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.

Well, I don't think regarding Maintainers as being in competition with
AI will be very productive.  AI is a tool for maintainers to use, if
they wish, to augment their other skills.

> 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.

Chris Mason is already doing that, I think.  However, I didn't anchor
my proposal around lack of review, I anchored it to a better documented
risk/benefit calculation ... and that doesn't change enormously however
many reviews the patch gets.

Regards,

James