On 16/05/2026 15:24, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 02:29:15PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 16/05/2026 14:23, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> On 5/16/26 05:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 16/05/2026 14:11, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> What the hell is that: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ >>>>>> >>>>>> As a bot you CANNOT MAKE a Reviewer's statement of oversight. You are >>>>>> not a damn human do be able to make such statement. You are a bot, a >>>>>> tool. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Where exactly do the rules say that ? I seem to miss that. >>>>> >>>>> There is a policy document about _contributions_ made by AI, but I don't >>>>> see the one that says that AI agents must not provide Reviewed-by: tags. >>>> >>>> Quotes from the existing policy: >>>> >>>> 1. "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:" >>>> >>>> Tool cannot use first person "I". Tool cannot "state that". >>>> >>>> 2. "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an >>>> appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious" >>>> >>>> Tool cannot make a statement of opinion. >>>> >>>> 3. "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a >>>> Reviewed-by". >>>> >>>> Tool is not a reviewer as a person, thus above does not grant the tool >>>> permission to offer a tag. >>> >>> I'd like to see that explicitly spelled out. Until then it is your opinion. >> >> It is not an opinion. It is written. I gave you quotes. >> >> Do you want to spell the rules of English language? That tool is not a >> person? >> >> Shall I send the patch like: >> >> Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a >> Reviewed-by. >> +In English "reviewer" is a person [1]. >> + [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reviewer >> >> Seriously, you expect to document the English language? >> >>>>>> Stop faking tags. >>>>>> >>>>>> And really, considering how many false positives Sashiko produces, how >>>>>> poor review comments it gives, how many misleading comments, it's >>>>>> unacceptable to me to consider that a review. >>>>>> >>>>>> Amount of useless noise Sashiko produces already changed my mind how >>>>>> useful that tool is. > > Note this isn't en entirely new situation. As a maintainer, you know how > much you trust each reviewer. You will consider some R-b tags as a sign > you don't even have to look at a patch, and will completely ignore some > others. There's a whole continuum in the middle. In some ways, reviews > by an LLM are similar. You will trust them or not trust them. > > Except they're also very different. > > The kernel needs more skilled reviewers (I don't think this is a > controversial statement). We can't expect all newcomers to start with > extensive experience from day one, so there's a learning curve. I > believe it's fine for more junior reviewers to send R-b tags even if > they miss some issue, as long as they genuinely try and improve (and, in > some unfortunate cases, decide to leave if patch review turns out not to > be for them). Those R-b tags may feel like a bit of noise in the > beginning, but that's compensated by their value increasing over time.
Yes, I agree. Reviews from inexperienced people are sometimes fruitless or pointless per actual value they bring, but they allow a person (again: person) to grow in the community with a credits being the reward. > > Bot reviews are not the same. Not only are they generated at a much > larger scale than human reviews, they also won't learn from feedback you > give them. Sure, the tools may be improved when cases of false positives > are identified, and new LLMs may be trained with more (and better ?) > data to improve the output, but they won't learn from the interactions. > > How much value a maintainer sees in those reviews is up to individual > maintainers. I will personally not consider a R-b tag from an LLM to > mean that a patch is ready to be merged (and I believe you won't > either). As such, I think that a R-b from an LLM is misleading and > doesn't provide good value. At best it's free advertising for company > making closed-source tools, which I don't think we should encourage. That's different aspect than I raised. I agree with above approach but it is more subjective. What I brought is object: our docs clearly state that reviewer can offer reviewed-by tag. They do not allow non-reviewers to offer a tag and English is clear on that - only a person is a reviewer. Dog is not a reviewer. Hammer is not a reviewer. Tool is not a reviewer. Guenter did not bring any counter arguments that our docs ALLOW non-person to provide a reviewed-by tag. I brought that arguments as excerpt from our documented policy. Best regards, Krzysztof
