From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 66CCA456DE9 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 14:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785249851; cv=none; b=ElbTGyGJIoypxuo9j/vZMQGDXOSJoEfkjQ5peNAl9u4esJQ1NPXTykDrcw4YpeA5oDeg1EMYW2LN+4EvzQ9/m2/yxroHUQBXSyUYWY9L/V3NGBxLaj3CaxOzY6epoTi/nuZ0HoEZ+kHfX8eZ493OSaUWcpG5TYOepcpZ75N7jW4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785249851; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ru2wMwxdrtiChBLKMJ+O9R/ZEREGN2zzSs7sfjFpgls=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EXuv3TQ0iaywFQXWLZpIOk5W7OBYTJJbECEwhHFwfisC1oP5JBMdb82HjZurUkrf9b4d0bjGrVC7sAc1VgW8VbxcSI4TG7qVgMAPfx6Iw/9/FXBVO0Rwe+NGbs48KlIlSlmXEK0Do21NVyKtce/KUYY1SjQeKvWhO89oOSoSuKo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=a9H+i8t8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="a9H+i8t8" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org (pool-108-20-43-42.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.20.43.42]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 66SEhWMv003318 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:43:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1785249815; bh=hF8jTJ2Y6RKeXf+Xo1YCrExaUVI4ZVsSpHkXg62O3IY=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=a9H+i8t809nmwk51y99ma52DOO+NQpDGEtA6TC3zZxO2gyhw8sYtU75dQGSo8uoEd 8BO4uHCOKSAMSPFqKK1Zjwmcunvy/Mge8vqAC1bzhOALhZCXALqRIGE0+UiXDObSDH VSLqKQi2766tV68ZUv/wCuXYneAfKcSbeEv+JV6dr5p8IDSwiC9NulBg8P5nolNQT7 6znIzWJ3NwEXe+VB+JSA8ib78MXL0uOlyabJH9j5Av8BDv1b+PY58mjdwTg+9pRdYP nC8EHdXghSPvdpZ8GuCafp0vIwaBcG4wwLLKCyhew4ML+kmZYHDWqh5/6aOuIWkfAO AmzyYBc6EzGEw== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 4F648C7423D; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:42:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:42:32 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Carlos Maiolino , "Darrick J. Wong" , Joanne Koong , changfengnan@bytedance.com, Christian Brauner , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: selective Sashiko replies, was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iomap: decouple simple direct I/O reads from iomap_dio_rw Message-ID: References: <20260722124931.3159664-1-hch@lst.de> <20260722124931.3159664-3-hch@lst.de> <20260723045347.GA6641@lst.de> <20260723151021.GC7380@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20260728040120.GA19400@lst.de> <20260728072756.7ddc9fdd@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260728072756.7ddc9fdd@kernel.org> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 07:27:56AM -0500, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > +1, maybe perhaps someone wants the off-list option, dunno. > But trimming the CC list of the on-list reply is a really weird idea. > Submissions often CC multiple vger lists, and the bot only replies to one. It's not (necessarily) "just one" mailing list. For better or for worse, there are people who have claimed that being exposed to LLM reviews would "deman their humanity". So the Sashiko maintainers have made it completely up to each subsystem whether (a) Sashiko should review the patch aat all or (b) whether the review should be sent via e-mail, or just left on sashiko.dev web site. If it is sent via e-mail, then who it should be sent to can be configured to send it to the patch author (or not), or what e-mail addresses should be sent if the patch is qualified as relevant for a particular subsystem. This could just be the maintainer(s), or to the subsystem mailing list, etc. If a patch is relevant to (say) both the SCSI subsystem and the s390 subsystem, then it will be sent to both subsystem mailing lists. So it's not that the bot only replies to one list, but only to those lists that the subsystem maintainers have authorized. At some level, the Sashiko developers effectively have tossed the hot potato policy decision to the subsystem maintainers. Given the megathead on the ksummit mailing lsit, I can't really blame Roman for choosing to do this ---- although I'll note the Intel zero-day bot folks chose differently; I guess automated benchmarks aren't perceived to demean the humanity of developers as much as LLM reviews, and so aren't as controversial. Cheers, - Ted