From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 5B04E18DB0D; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:59:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753901970; cv=none; b=tE7FSYwMSv0K5UZ6J5TAsbCzo8/0zgtXqt227cfluhYoV80jNl+23icw7uBxz8+qL3Fd7jTsHUutRu3rGlxoRYkrUFOg9QAPKm3P6eMd8/zYLf/Y4OWPslkT08TbYpUnhAqlXUv4O///IpwcdZB0lEqzUhws8kBqVYWBH6449Zw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1753901970; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zUi6+hvnnojo5SL2vIkde3UuDJG8e0E2JNKftV/OqZA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=eJSt1UvAkBqrBZjIWs5uMQr5Shz4nhDoHz9SeqQkiVvs0EtpTzZ+muwZfIusizBTmTOVpLpTqQXfsLIXt3VlkC4T/idKAitAT8lS2pHfZfDlCGXHhkrn/XW5OIZ5ATxIwIJTHE7MUZHR+nQp4DR2iKVDotp+Ou/g+IaXSXAQaME= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Q2xmh5F7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Q2xmh5F7" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 642FAC4CEE3; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 18:59:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1753901969; bh=zUi6+hvnnojo5SL2vIkde3UuDJG8e0E2JNKftV/OqZA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Q2xmh5F7xnqCUQVwwufx4Mpz6GTshhz0oQKJKmjn2q960Jin5mhuyI4XrQnSj/Qyx TdVeShowZDEN7h4jj6C9+QU9cR/DgEs4S14uBfe0pwxA2YiPPvxv4WoSMWSTAPyKpV CSN1x6ZTV+El0nPc2C6kCNtOoLWlrRvLliAas80AJLGy17F8YPY2kEaI6eM6qmwcCL qXA7WYtlkSCLmeRr/40+1qPovVxbNl2BIJES3WL/2x7hP++sC6BjE5ytnb9s1sB4WT Fxtvt8OcIrSFhDnkVhi78NN8AJkW9I9hQjWCOJXibIqX62w7Du1SND3Q+Ykh6QeBmH OJNDJCJAf1OHA== Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 14:59:27 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Al Viro , Steven Rostedt , Greg KH , corbet@lwn.net, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, kees@kernel.org, konstantin@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add agent coding assistant configuration to Linux kernel Message-ID: References: <20250730112753.17f5af13@gandalf.local.home> <158707d7-6729-4bb6-bc72-7556d11bfaef@lucifer.local> <20250730121829.0c89228d@gandalf.local.home> <20250730130531.4855a38b@gandalf.local.home> <20250730175909.GO222315@ZenIV> <9e471218-35a2-4e22-8826-40576919e737@lucifer.local> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9e471218-35a2-4e22-8826-40576919e737@lucifer.local> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 07:24:13PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: >On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 02:10:26PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 06:59:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 01:46:47PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >> > >> > > Similarily the argument around not trusting the code is equivalent to >> > > not trusting the person who sent the code in. AI doesn't send patches on >> > > it's own - humans do. This is basically saying "I didn't even look at >> > > your patch because I don't trust you". >> > >> > One name: Markus Elfring. Ever tried to reason with that one? Or Hillf >> > Danton, for that matter. >> > >> > And I absolutely will refuse to take patches from somebody who would >> > consistently fail to explain why the patch is correct and needed. Sasha, >> > this is the elephant in the room: we *ALREADY* get "contributions" that >> > very clearly stem from "$TOOL says so, what else do you need?" kind of >> > reasoning and some of that dreck ends up in the tree. AI will serve as >> > a force multiplier for those... persons. >> >> This is exactly my argument Al :) >> >> You, as a maintainer, should be able to just reject patches without >> having to provide a technical explanation for each patch you ignore. >> >> If someone new comes along and bombards you with AI generated crap and >> useless review comments, you should be able to just block him and point >> to something under Documentation/ that will support that decision. > >I'm in alignment with Al and your view here FWIW! > >Though I do think Steven has a point in that there must be a _good reason_ >that aligns with the community for doing so, and it shouldn't be arbitrary. I don't disagree with Steve: Ideally there is a technical reason to block submissions, but as this is a judgement call I'd rather defer it to the maintainer (usually people don't become maintainers by making bad decisions :) ). The tricky part is that this is all subjective... What's "good enough"? As a compromise, what about allowing a maintainer to block submissions without having to provide a technical reason, but then offer a path of escalation with the TAB to mediate between the developer and the maintainer? -- Thanks, Sasha