From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 C6E663E49CA for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:12:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784653975; cv=none; b=FLaccxrLUA4Om3L97l1NW1mk6E1SiEautwfhX9KFn2mC8QEkiF39peeggm3Zhj8+THudulDkrbvPSwP8Yu0TMylZICWkxE441X779oPVulleXQEcMVGfQK60NJmpoeWKnasrN9D8VDE+WbHtu1wIA2TvBti7P2nngTaIOSt4OvM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784653975; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mz2NZVCbidIJyhdfVYmGlc4F7FqNTvxN4yyNVqzvlHM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fC9gy36Vvb3kkvAblF810LuGX4iA9SMbhoEW4WyNX+NGaW+6bPUVU/9sUG5Gic0y0ui91QHv2husBRsT7QqtQUHj3gQgXyGhWzp45Awp+B59n0Ue7ySSvOm8oglAd1OA4+PxgJSne3udnqlxaMBGoZlEQWoTrGxkAxiBZwyvF30= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=Aj1xX1WA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="Aj1xX1WA" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE2B7C1; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 19:11:51 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1784653912; bh=mz2NZVCbidIJyhdfVYmGlc4F7FqNTvxN4yyNVqzvlHM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Aj1xX1WA2s3aaWD3yGeXLLLZkugxGtuqElhg50GU4169JOumPp8Gd3zU1faJSpsLa HEGZBkhvKX0sEsv/MgFOuz+Arx/6wBK97VIZmqCmgSQe7N7wSwAGTgSg35VDllsXxu z51Vx0fsU5cWoaByJhmyqG037KempAjyRW+Njcyk= Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:12:49 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Mark Brown , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Theodore Tso , Jacopo Mondi , Roman Gushchin , Derek Barbosa , Matthieu Baerts , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Jason Gunthorpe , users@kernel.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Stephen Finucane Subject: Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko? Message-ID: <20260721171249.GF536385@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <4928C919-7999-4E76-ADCB-F8643FED105B@linux.dev> <20260717152559.2d2bfc8d@localhost> <20260720095537.4d5d503b@robin> <20260720142432.288b0433@robin> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260720142432.288b0433@robin> On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 02:24:32PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:26:34 +0100 Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 09:55:37AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > designed. But I fortunately know of these areas and can easily see when > > > Sashiko falls over it. Hence, these false positives do not waste my > > > time as I'm already aware of them. (I do take a deeper look to make > > > sure it's not reporting something similar that may truly be a bug). > > > > OTOH I had a submitter up to v14 on a new series over the weekend since > > they were iterating Sashiko feedback. > > Hmm, we should state that Sashiko is sometimes wrong. A submitter to > me asked what they should do about a Sashiko feedback they diddn't > understand, and after reading the Sashiko review, I told them to ignore > it. We discussed this at length in linux-media. There were proposals for a custom header telling patch authors that in case they think a flagged issue may be incorrect they should reach to an experienced reviewer (or just ignore it, the wording went through multiple iterations). The problem there is that, by definition, a junior, unexperienced developer will have more trouble determining if feedback is correct or not. > > > Do we need to add an flag to the MAINTAINERS file that states which > > > sub-systems uses AI? > > > > That's probably too complicated - some poeple will want submitters to do > > things like ask submitters to address Sashiko reviews before the > > maintainers will look at it, other subsystems might make use of Sashiko > > reviews or whatever but not make it a requirement for submitters to do > > so. > > Is it too complicated? Do you mean it's too complicated if one > sub-system says "resolve all Sashiko feedback you receive" and another > is "You may ignore it"? > > We probably don't want maintainers to require resolving all Sashiko > reviews, but at least respond to them. Where "I don't know" and "I > think this review is wrong" are legitimate responses. It is basically > saying "I want to speak to a person" when drudging through the phone > automated AI teleprompters. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart