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

[Li Wang]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 6:11 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> ...
> > > [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.
>
> Nice :).
>
> "DoS kernel maintainers with AI slop" is a real danger.
>
> > 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.
>
> +1. Is that due "AI slop" or legal issues?
>

Due "AI slop", cuz mostly nowadays AI is unable to perfectly generate
suitable
code for complex projects such as kernels. They only used it in the first
round
of patch review.


> While I also share the fear of "AI slop", I was surprised that QEMU really
> strictly bans AI generated code due legal issues. I wonder if kernel endup
> the
> same as well.
>
>
> https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/code-provenance.html#use-of-ai-generated-content
>
> > And, of course, clearly flagging content as AI-generated code in the
> patch
> > might help.
>
> +1.
>
> IMHO using AI for help with manual work, e.g. converting docs from asciidoc
>

Yes.

to RST format is ok. For me the question is whether it can be used for
> generating a test code (new tests from scratch, rewrite into into new API
> which
> is often clearer write from scratch).
>

I don't think AI can write better code than mankind for the whole test,
it might offer suggestions for a piece of function.

Just like Ying Huang (From Alibaba) spoke to me:
"I found that AI performs better only when I break the work down into
atomic units."

Therefore, it's especially important to rely on engineers' experience to
clearly understand what problems are hindering them and how to
communicate with AI.



>
> Anyway, because we already had some AI generated patches it'd be good to
> have an
> AI policy.  But I would like not to block this patchset it (it'd be nice
> to get
> the patchset merged before Christmas and solve AI policy afterwards).
>

+1


-- 
Regards,
Li Wang