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

On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:14:49 -0700
Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> wrote:

> > On Jul 17, 2026, at 2:05=E2=80=AFPM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]=
rg> wrote:
> >=20
> > =EF=BB=BFOn 15/07/2026 18:55, Roman Gushchin wrote: =20
> >> * Prompt development and testing.
> >> Currently, prompts are maintained in two GitHub repositories and are
> >> changed manually or with the help of AI coding agents. However, there =
is
> >> no established practice for testing them, especially across various LLM
> >> models. At the last LSFMMBPF conference, there was a discussion about
> >> moving them into the kernel tree. I see some pros and cons to this
> >> approach, but the ownership and testing models are not entirely clear.=
 =20
> >=20
> > Prompts in a meaning how to parse kernel, work with it or produce
> > reports: yeah, sure.
> >=20
> > Prompts teaching kernel code: I don't think so. I find it really
> > incorrect approach to create a dedicated and duplicated basic knowledge
> > for LLMs, instead of focusing on knowledge for developers. I understand
> > that LLM has to be taught basics of C [1], but we should not duplicate
> > kernel coding style or kernel rules into LLM-only instructions. Instead=
: =20
>=20
> I agree.
> I also experiment with Sashiko auto-creating prompts based on human
> feedback in emails and initial results look promising. So maybe we don=E2=
=80=99t
> even need to write too much manually for LLMs.

Sounds interesting, but IMO before activating such prompts, the best would
be if, before applying the change, it would request the subsystem maintaine=
r's=20
approval, presenting him with the review diff without and after the new pro=
mpt.

Thanks,
Mauro