Kevin Wolf <[email protected]> writes: > Am 05.10.2026 um 23:09 hat BALATON Zoltan geschrieben: >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> > I agree completely with how you phrased the first and third. I agree >> > that the second bullet is a risk too, but it's mitigated by "LLM-created >> > contributions will be held to a higher standard than human-created ones, >> > because LLMs make it easier to write tests" (and by maintainers being >> > able to >> >> Tests need to be reviewed too to be able to trust them so that does not help >> against overloading reviewers with generated patches but burdens them even >> more: they will also have to review the tests before the code. > > The required level of trust for tests is comparatively low, so it's much > easier to review tests to a sufficient level than say device emulation > code. > > If a new test looks plausible, fails before the fix and passes > afterwards, it's more useful that what we had before, even if it's > technically buggy in some corner case.
And also easier to rip out in the unlikely event it infringes anything. But broadly having a test* is better than having no test. > > Kevin * modulo the effects on our coverage. -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
