From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-177.mta1.migadu.com (out-177.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 661BB28725B for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:28:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.177 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784132922; cv=none; b=QJoTwlfEiYRkjEb/TfrLV0ob1HiSyez5mgHO+bHuMvnfmP4nX6xSgH8bEjzi+xAj8b9cN8sr0ThBp8cBrWicp9JzFsJBBNxqgNdMIFx5O2ogo6eNM3U57HaiUe3/IX8Q5qpI5+H7jhBxY2nCVplJf0nQMogiqQ8p+1mEdJ9Zwd0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784132922; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kYirwBAuLJl0Z28Is6n9L+vxTIXbJZ4R5UuYSCdJYIQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=DSPXGqv+1g3CE7AR6fy/BFQf90LHL7C9N9aTLjI84mOpwZ+JiZfPZR4UW+GncSRa/ZDCbYN4MtmRNcBTekInNknWragkYdbhwi2aAWpnagF0QTAGBpRyWyuDUZzg9P5eQrAN+or8JJ6VKan7Guvt226YEERjWgUebmqdJwwNs/I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=Tg/Ya4zi; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.177 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="Tg/Ya4zi" Message-ID: <00a244f8-5be6-4ee7-b5b1-e4cbdcd4fc77@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1784132908; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=dTacKQLLuTMd2fXvvh6NzdLLAV7FfwsgEUfmU/L/fQ4=; b=Tg/Ya4zibKMsAo6gAfHKoHnMqwtMr/iZNfoOZ9659m9MsNP6XiSuJALAACCVVG9ubBF1se Y5hTScoI7Pdbch4Z6RPr+vyOE95E6tiuq7SvqG96p8BUaQOK+FGtj4/GMQJ3nUcMMBO+9Q S0USLjcy+2KfRuwVuUzUgVFRKS1bwkk= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 09:28:03 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko? To: Laurent Pinchart , Roman Gushchin Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Derek Barbosa , Matthieu Baerts , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Jason Gunthorpe , Steven Rostedt , users@kernel.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Stephen Finucane , bpf , Chris Mason , Christian Brauner , Alexei Starovoitov References: <20260604085201.177ad537@foz.lan> <20260607195656.02788791@foz.lan> <20260710074528.5a6e4457@foz.lan> <20260710083845.23c753ca@foz.lan> <87wlv2jq4t.fsf@linux.dev> <20260713095538.3d5e86f1@foz.lan> <20260713094120.GD1127719@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260713220427.582b28bf@foz.lan> <7ia4mrvtrxjl.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Ihor Solodrai In-Reply-To: <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 7/14/26 5:59 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > [...] > > I expect maintainers who want to act on sashiko reviews to triage and > verify them first before bothering authors, yes. I can't help but chime in, because I find this opinion triggeringly unreasonable. As of today, the problem is *not* "thoughtful experts are bombarded with low-quality feedback from llms", even though the experts might feel like that frequently. The problem is that the mailing list is flooded with slop to varying degree depending on the subsystem. And review by humans, even with powerful AI tools at hand, doesn't scale [1][2]. And the argument "I didn't sign up for AI reviews" is weak. If you've sent a patch to the mailing list, and there are maintainer-sanctioned bot messages in response, you've already opted-in to receive them. Yes, it is annoying. It's annoying in the same way a dozen nits on your patch from a human reviewer is annoying. But the contributors generally accept this, otherwise their patches don't land. Your job as a contributor is to make sure the patch is "good enough" to land. Now, with ubiquitous AI tools, "good enough" means *at least* that the AI bots don't find real bugs. Yes, assessing whether AI report is "real" is work, but it's not reasonable to push this work on already overwhelmed maintainers. And if AI is wrong, again it's the job of the author to convince the maintainers it's wrong. I set up automated AI code reviews on BPF list using Chris Mason's prompts in the fall last year [3], before sashiko was developed. And originally we were very worried about the quality of the reviews. Time has showed that we had to be more worried about the average quality of incoming patch instead. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQKsM8iOGO3ZL3LgbWigOBBMrGbTYZ_k_Ktz=+cVkvRLXg@mail.gmail.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260703-vfs-summer-jam-22b2edbbbc44@brauner/ [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/0d6aa077-1222-49a0-9554-dd922122a904@meta.com/ > I believe we should > follow the first two recommendations of the Software Freedom Conservancy > on using LLM-backed generative AI systems for FOSS contributions ([1]). > > [1] https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recommendations.html >