Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] The place of AI code review in the Linux Kernel process

Miguel Ojeda <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 6:55=E2=80=AFPM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@li=
nux.dev> wrote:
>>
>> * Review of LTS patches and kernel releases.
>
> For the backporting case, I think this could help, and there are
> certain things we could ask for, i.e. custom prompts.

+1

> It may also have less noise, in the sense that the AI has the original
> commit in mainline as a baseline, i.e. it is not a completely new
> patch of unknown quality.
>
> I imagine Sasha et al. have experience with this.
>
>> * How to maintain the long-term stability of Sashiko?
>
> How hard do you think it would be to get at least one more AI company
> to donate some tokens (for their own model)? Could that be a simple
> start to begin reducing the single-provider issue?

It's hard to say. Technically it's fairly trivial to make Sashiko using
multiple models for discovery stages 1-7 in parallel, which will almost
certainly improve the review quality. In such case models will
effectively cooperate to produce better reviews, which is our goal.

>> * Handling of pre-existing bugs.
>
> Do you mean the AI would be able to query that database? Or directly
> being part of the prompt for that subsystem/file if it is not too big?

Yes, Sashiko can query the database before reporting pre-existing
issues, e.g. if there is an obvious but not urgent pre-existing bug
there is no point to report it again and again.

Thanks!