[LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] doc: Add ground rules page

[Li Wang]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 10:31 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> > Another *important* rule concerns artificial intelligence. I've noticed
> > some beginners submitting LTP patches directly generated by AI tools.
> > This puts a significant burden on patch review, as AI can sometimes
> > introduce a weird/unreliable perspective into the code.
>
> > Be careful when using AI tools
> +1 I like this title.
>
> > ========================
> > AI tools can be useful for executing, summarizing, or suggesting
> approaches,
> > but they can also be confidently wrong and give an illusion of
> correctness.
> > Treat AI output as untrusted: verify claims against the code,
> documentation,
> > and actual behavior on a reproducer.
>
> > Do not send AI-generated changes as raw patches. AI-generated diffs often
> > contain
> > irrelevant churn, incorrect assumptions, inconsistent style, or subtle
> > bugs, which
> > creates additional burden for maintainers to review and fix.
>
> > Best practice is to write your own patches and have them reviewed by AI
> > before
> > submitting them, which helps add beneficial improvements to your work.
>
> Hopefully the last paragraph will be understand how it is meant. Because we
> really don't want to encourage people to send something generated by AI
> they
> don't really understand at all. I'd consider not suggesting any AI.
>
> I remember briefly reading kernel folks discussing their policy [1]:
>
> > We cannot keep complaining about maintainer overload and, at the same
> > time, encourage people to bombard us with even more of that stuff.
>
> And another one I can't find any more talking that it's about the trust. If
> somebody sends wrong patches generated by AI he risks patches will be
> simply
> ignored.
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
>


> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1bd04ce1-87c0-4e23-b155-84f7235f6072@redhat.com/


What a coincidence! I just spoke face-to-face with David Hildenbrand
at LPC last Friday. He expressed concerns about the increasing amount
of AI-generated code being sent to the LKML, pointing out that it does
indeed place a considerable review burden on maintainers. Moreover,
he himself rarely uses AI.

Furthermore, some experts at Huawei told me that they only allow patch
senders to review patches before sending them, but do not permit the
use of AI-generated code.

And, of course, clearly flagging content as AI-generated code in the patch
might help.


-- 
Regards,
Li Wang