Em sex., 16 de jan. de 2026 às 10:06, Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> escreveu: > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 09:50:51AM -0300, Julio Faracco wrote: > > Em sex., 16 de jan. de 2026 às 02:33, Peter Krempa > > <[email protected]> escreveu: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 23:52:29 -0300, Julio Faracco wrote: > > > > This commit introduces the VIR_DOMAIN_INPUT_TYPE_MULTITOUCH enum value > > > > to > > > > the virDomainInputType enumeration, laying the groundwork for multitouch > > > > input device support in libvirt. > > > > > > > > The new enum value is added to src/conf/domain_conf.h following the > > > > existing input types (mouse, tablet, keyboard, passthrough, evdev). This > > > > establishes the fundamental type definition that will be used throughout > > > > the codebase to identify and handle multitouch input devices. > > > > > > > > This is the first step in implementing support for QEMU's > > > > virtio-multitouch > > > > device, which was introduced in QEMU 8.1.0 and enables emulation of > > > > multitouch events via the libvirt API. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Julio Faracco <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > src/conf/domain_conf.h | 1 + > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.h b/src/conf/domain_conf.h > > > > index cb35ff06bd..4c448bd010 100644 > > > > --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.h > > > > +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.h > > > > @@ -1554,6 +1554,7 @@ typedef enum { > > > > VIR_DOMAIN_INPUT_TYPE_KBD, > > > > VIR_DOMAIN_INPUT_TYPE_PASSTHROUGH, > > > > VIR_DOMAIN_INPUT_TYPE_EVDEV, > > > > + VIR_DOMAIN_INPUT_TYPE_MULTITOUCH, > > > > > > We require that the build passes cleanly after each patch. This > > > obviously won't work with this since you fix up enums later. See > > > contributor guildelines: > > > > > > https://www.libvirt.org/hacking.html#preparing-patches > > > > > > "If you're going to submit multiple patches, the automated tests must > > > pass after each patch, not just after the last one." > > > > Oh, I missed that. Thanks for remembering me. It's been a long time > > since my last contribution. > > > > > > > > Multiple of your commit messages and especially 7/8 also have a strong > > > LLM vibe. Note that we don't allow AI contributions: > > > > > > https://www.libvirt.org/hacking.html#use-of-ai-content-generators > > > > > > "Current libvirt project policy is to DECLINE any contributions which > > > are believed to include or derive from AI generated content. This > > > includes ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Llama and similar tools." > > > > > > > > > Specifically paragraph: > > > > > > "These additions ensure that multitouch devices are fully integrated > > > with libvirt's security, auditing, and validation infrastructure. > > > Without these changes, multitouch devices would trigger warnings about > > > unhandled enum values or potentially cause security labeling failures. > > > > > > strikes as AI. Because it's overly verbose and half of the things that > > > are mentioned are not even true (e.g. it adds no-op code to the selinux > > > driver), the other half is trying to justify fix for build failures from > > > previous patches. > > > > > > > I DO NOT use AI agents to generate code obviously, but I do to improve > > the quality of the commit message/cover letter. > > Let me resend the patch to fix the compilation issues and use my own words > > then. > > Using an AI agent to improve commit messages *is* permitted under policy. > > Whether written by a human or LLM, the overriding expectation is that > the commit messages are providing an appropriate level of detail for > the type of change being made and that they are accurate of course. > > Given AI agents tendancy to be ridiculously verbose LLM generated commit > messages are quite likely to need significant editting to reduce verbosity, > aside from vetting that it is accurate. > > IMHO that suggests LLMs are not especially beneficial for writing commit > messages, but contributors can make that decision for themselves, as long > as the result is accurate & appropriately verbose for the change.
What I have tried to say is exactly that: before sending the patches I just ask LLMs to review the commit messages of my patches and make improvements. But yes, it tends to increase the verbosity significantly. Well, I understood the feedback. Let me fix the patchset and resubmit using my own words only. (Perhaps one good adjustment is just using LLMs to fix orthography and typos) > > With regards, > Daniel > -- > |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| > Thanks! -- Julio Faracco
