Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.9 09/26] net/mlx5e: Init ethtool steering for representors

From: Sasha Levin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 09:21:24 -0400

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 09:08:06PM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 15:58 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Hrm, why? Pretend that the bot is a human sitting somewhere sending
>> mails out, how does it change anything?
>>
>
>If i know a bot might do something wrong, i Fix it and make sure it
>will never do it again. For humans i just can't do that, can I ? :)
>so this is the difference and why we all have jobs ..

It's tricky because there's no one true value here. Humans are
constantly wrong about whether a patch is a fix or not, so how can I
train my bot to be 100% right?

>> > > The solution here is to beef up your testing infrastructure
>> > > rather
>> > > than
>> >
>> > So please let me opt-in until I beef up my testing infra.
>>
>> Already did :)
>
>No you didn't :), I received more than 5 AUTOSEL emails only today and
>yesterday.

Appologies, this is just a result of how my process goes - patch
selection happened a few days ago (which is when blacklists are
applied), it's been running through my tests since, and mails get sent
out only after tests.

>Please don't opt mlx5 out just yet ;-), i need to do some more research
>and make up my mind..

Alrighty. Keep in mind you can always reply with just a "no" to AUTOSEL
mails, you don't have to explain why you don't want it included to keep
it easy.

>>
>> > > taking less patches; we still want to have *all* the fixes,
>> > > right?
>> > >
>> >
>> > if you can be sure 100% it is the right thing to do, then yes,
>> > please
>> > don't hesitate to take that patch, even without asking anyone !!
>> >
>> > Again, Humans are allowed to make mistakes.. AI is not.
>>
>> Again, why?
>>
>
>Because AI is not there yet.. and this is a very big philosophical
>question.
>
>Let me simplify: there is a bug in the AI, where it can choose a wrong
>patch, let's fix it.

But we don't know if it's wrong or not, so how can we teach it to be
100% right?

I keep retraining the NN based on previous results which improves it's
accuracy, but it'll never be 100%.

The NN claims we're at ~95% with regards to past results.

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha