Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] doc: Add ground rules page

Andrea Cervesato via ltp
2025-12-15T15:01:33Z

Hi!

On Mon Dec 15, 2025 at 3:30 PM CET, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > Another *important* rule concerns artificial intelligence. I've noticed
> > some beginners submitting LTP patches directly generated by AI tools.
> > This puts a significant burden on patch review, as AI can sometimes
> > introduce a weird/unreliable perspective into the code.
>
> > Be careful when using AI tools
> +1 I like this title.
>
> > ========================
> > AI tools can be useful for executing, summarizing, or suggesting approaches,
> > but they can also be confidently wrong and give an illusion of correctness.
> > Treat AI output as untrusted: verify claims against the code, documentation,
> > and actual behavior on a reproducer.
>
> > Do not send AI-generated changes as raw patches. AI-generated diffs often
> > contain
> > irrelevant churn, incorrect assumptions, inconsistent style, or subtle
> > bugs, which
> > creates additional burden for maintainers to review and fix.
>
> > Best practice is to write your own patches and have them reviewed by AI
> > before
> > submitting them, which helps add beneficial improvements to your work.
>
> Hopefully the last paragraph will be understand how it is meant. Because we
> really don't want to encourage people to send something generated by AI they
> don't really understand at all. I'd consider not suggesting any AI.
>
> I remember briefly reading kernel folks discussing their policy [1]:
>

There's nothing wrong with AI usage nowadays, since it's proven that
they can shine on certain specific tasks. In general, code generation
works bad, especially inside the kernel development. And in LTP,
obviously.

But when it comes to correct commit messages, learning what a certain
code is doing or understanding compile errors, they can be useful.

Said so, I like the Li approach, because it gives to AI the right place,
without expanding its boundaries which are well defined and well known.

> > We cannot keep complaining about maintainer overload and, at the same
> > time, encourage people to bombard us with even more of that stuff.
>
> And another one I can't find any more talking that it's about the trust. If
> somebody sends wrong patches generated by AI he risks patches will be simply
> ignored.
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1bd04ce1-87c0-4e23-b155-84f7235f6072@redhat.com/

--
Andrea Cervesato
SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
andrea.cervesato@suse.com