From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.tipi-net.de (mail.tipi-net.de [194.13.80.246]) (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 6A63B431A40 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:22:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784888557; cv=none; b=V4x0cEKec3lBEJAkTWc9WLMiclhf/nFgx8wygpe8f2Jh23TRR54TMHCOyl7d3rNJFIgBG2n+fP9oT7E9Gms9zsn0dYPDh8mLYhQAl3PGEPjtIEC9fIAGOPaVaYh1pE1vAXn/2ATUBjkKa8i7CYq8M2MVGvQ6gaPDreGjGwgUqjs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784888557; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SyvagFmvZ5lnOm9Rwsl0MKMPhbRx/RdmElepEdAaKRQ=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=g4dCeZQm30pMF3Icv0Y5L6rL/wFlc1S2CoGAwVQSVa43C7wtBmL9iwXqr+4lU0KSJrI5hzHKUpXBzu4ZjFHEv6PgU/9EMTw7n33Ceryd/H+i6wjcdA/GU+40NEVjmLEQOSQUd2sHcA86yd3S4wf5rkRH0yXFciyk8lWlvoT1nrI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b=YjDMqpXk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b="YjDMqpXk" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 46704A6935; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:22:21 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tipi-net.de; s=dkim; t=1784888543; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=LNmmfCd+qbXRdBRb70IPu5Qh54v0j2foyeCy+tiKJqg=; b=YjDMqpXkHlOhM9H2nduabFX9VzxQrz9tGlbaHRod8OV0uZrBGKATCcR03UwGvLv0isE3v7 7jAM9zLdob5lbUd4LgN8XLM8bVaZCCEIsK2M5gpNSHyoFYbvKfnU5iYbNL9XFeWmX4INfj ZgJoJ2cKPZTaelxuolk/bXyyIeJ3rNaUatJ6fWU2oPIqn985rNGIiMt0hpEWvzsf7tam3y DB8+RnWIxIOtX/IV7i89dmxPEo1vDRdz21BJ06UB+o8YsqTI5/YDyqZP3fB2F3L1VF15s6 HyMEUzThLNLxGP3grS3XY1qJt/5haR6Qo6iajQlEvoMduId25+ZuXHgUj5a5cQ== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 12:22:21 +0200 From: Nicolai Buchwitz To: Paolo Abeni Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Simon Horman , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] docs: netdev: clarify expected interactions with LLMs In-Reply-To: <83360de7addb13a3b5f4d5e722148f248fdb2ae0.1784884817.git.pabeni@redhat.com> References: <83360de7addb13a3b5f4d5e722148f248fdb2ae0.1784884817.git.pabeni@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ac691b42bd2a8568014d680e21ca90c@tipi-net.de> X-Sender: nb@tipi-net.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 Hi Paolo On 24.7.2026 11:24, Paolo Abeni wrote: > The official documentation has not captured yet the current impact of > AI-generated reviews on the patch process. > > Explicitly state the status quo and expectations. > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni > --- > Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > index e58f541c29e0..1739d9f856c3 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > @@ -203,6 +203,22 @@ For RFC postings specifically, if nobody responded > in a week - reviewers > either missed the posting or have no strong opinions. If the code is > ready, > repost as a PATCH. > > +There are 2 services actively providing LLM-generated review on posted > patches: > + > +- https://sashiko.dev/ > +- https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/ > + > +both use the Sashiko infrastructure on top of different models. > Reviews are > +available after 24h. Patch authors are expected to proactively look > into the > +AI-generated reviews and handle such feedback as any other kind of > review: > +either debate it or address it. In both cases a reply on the mailing > list is > +expected. > + > +Authors are strongly encouraged to run LLM reviews on the posted > patches in > +advance of the actual post. Large series triggering a significant > amount of > +AI-generated feedback will likely get little attention from > maintainers and > +reviewers. Is it worth to mention Chris Mason's kernel prompts [1] as an explicit example here? [1] https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts > + > Emails saying just "ping" or "bump" are considered rude. If you can't > figure > out the status of the patch from patchwork or where the discussion has > landed - describe your best guess and ask if it's correct. For > example:: Anyway: Reviewed-by: Nicolai Buchwitz Thanks, Nicolai