From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 4B38A2D060B for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2026 16:45:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781887528; cv=none; b=B6bNN50esD30kiAaZ5kt/KjuIF32TLogubvc6S55fROxxS64jb/qYifn4eAil/NwCgZz8coT/hY83a1S7wfjxCrMiikU5vY1fnKFNDGI70FfbRoM5jW0LpFh6IPfWoYzb5Yu7VSz3G3VmuJPNcxUmvnsGBLUHeP5PKbsx07lWQk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781887528; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Qtn+FdoQfW/FFYD+4u2LEi66M5qxPEqTf+ge1hzvuf4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=SzxkbjZ/zNUBIyZyEWzbopC9tfTLHgdbTpE1PEqVURqXd+gbsmRoxq2uEsmrLLhFLjyKGsdoEdVWpIKLyfuOElthgTikrJgp3okduhiC9fZH8PvjEE/k5lmAMdmAJUMqqoEOOgkUysc54FQ0TFnZbw2klA5p+Zl027BemH7UP8I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=D/LH/rlT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="D/LH/rlT" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D491A1F000E9; Fri, 19 Jun 2026 16:45:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1781887526; bh=lM49Ei0wZ+A/CZgLuAfOKTKqnfAeeuTCx37DfOaSJsU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=D/LH/rlTZM6odgkjFZbq/ROJqSCOTK8sg3VhR9kMBlGNCikZjKncQMORdos3NSfpa hyPVyPs2xFZB+my019/+CQsMtuKIUq8qrjFij1emdQu7tk2kHaFoTNFoTnQbcaon8f aOMOFCkAMNEpXqDg56uqRg9pGix0ps+GAqUqFq/JLvZRjUOZyXNR/6seCC/vPDv34Q 8CNVLy7ge8lwJ+Uhwsat3NKrbyVCZknSyxZcjZlv61Fj9MabTE8v5XuiGDPkUqDyg/ dk3L3EFLBKv7HqSSNIbjzP5T/Lwo9gtvknCx1bCmfyLMbg2s+c4uCCP77QYCv3WMLp eQ7fTqL8cYVDg== Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 09:45:25 -0700 From: Oliver Upton To: Fuad Tabba Cc: Marc Zyngier , Roman Gushchin , Will Deacon , Vincent Donnefort , KVMARM Subject: Re: Sashiko review emails to the list Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hey, On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 03:19:05PM +0100, Fuad Tabba wrote: > Hi folks, > > I really like Sashiko and find it very useful. It's flagged real bugs > in series I and others have posted to the list (e.g. [1][2][3]), and I > run it locally before sending, which has saved me a few respins. > > That said, it's been posting a lot lately, so it seemed worth asking > how the review emails to the list are working out, and whether we > should change anything. So this is entirely my fault since I added the email configuration for the kvmarm list. Sashiko has been finding some truly nasty bugs, posting on-list is the easiest way to get attention from the right folks to get things fixed. With that being said, the signal to noise ratio hasn't been ideal. > These fixes will take a while to land, so the question is what to do > meanwhile. Some options, and surely others: > > - Leave it as-is while the fixes propagate. > - Stop the emails but keep the reviews on sashiko.dev, so people can > look rather than have them pushed. > - Disable the emails until the noise is down to a reasonable level, > then re-enable. This sounds like the right approach. I'd like to re-enable emails once we're happy with the quality of reviews. On another note: Roman, is it possible to separately report pre-existing issues from findings in a patch? Maintainers have a higher likelihood of caring about these than individual contributors anyway. Thanks, Oliver