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

--oGm/ERDzgHuHP87R
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 07:34:58AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> Last night I got a patch submission of a ~350 LOC driver. Sashiko reported
> 9 issues with it. No, it is not ok for the author to ignore Sashiko's feedback,
> and I am not even going to look at the code myself until the reported issues
> are either fixed or the author explains why they don't apply.

> It is fine (I would say acceptable) to ignore _pre-existing_ issues reported
> by Sashiko, but I do expect patch authors to address new issues, or to explain
> why they are false positives or don't apply.

> If you want to give patch authors the option to ignore Sashiko's feedback
> entirely, fine with me, but please do it on a per-subsystem basis.

OTOH I had a submitter send 15 versions of what should have been a
relatively simple quirk over the weekend iterating with Sashiko, then
the initial human review was "this seems like the wrong approach".  It
feels like there's some happy medium here.

--oGm/ERDzgHuHP87R
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmpiLFgACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9C6Wgf9F241ZNLX5g+Ft0E4yPUOHVoSU2Rwjb+MJdOpcFmup/6HCDQV5qU6UCdb
gKH/EHljfGrcX1DY1Gbz6N5Y3zPl475829U2k9QDcEAxOKsyrO+qN2aocUpJb/M5
P7lYWqY7esf4ZaqHqRY6kSvnMAK+UloBztir6Dw9fyUOgyBywecrpXxQnra9Xtvh
0UDLAXpKTnWtF8uUBUY6bEF8xwlCjxNIgc607BGBFeXsprR/jvkmyTsEXicIMUBs
vJ4l6jfkSzGGAErKJxwfbvdwpqHrX4b7RCncVyaTovo3MULVwvTBHT7TZG4QFu2b
Y+y/++P69j9qTNGRfGci7C2ANh71JQ==
=oZFC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--oGm/ERDzgHuHP87R--