Re: Patch pre-submission to Sashiko

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1691 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2026 at 06:20:47PM +0000, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat Oct 17, 2026 at 5:28 PM UTC, Jiri Kosina wrote:

> > Neither myself nor anyone else did comment with any review feedback, 
> > except for Sashiko. Which I believe is what triggered all the immediate 
> > resubmissions.

> > I don't think this is sustanable.

> I think it's just fine. I encourage developers to keep the spam going.

> You can simulate github style squah of v1->v2->v3 in your inbox.
> Ask your agent to monitor inbox, archive vN when vN+1 arrives
> and summarize v1->vN discussion. Then you'll always have the latest
> patch set to look at and a summary of what happened when you were away.
> Then sit on it for a day or a week to see whether respin
> cycle has ended (and bots stopped talking to each other) and then
> do a human part of maintainership.

It's not just LLM users getting caught by this, I've seen people I know
going multiple rounds in what appears to be a very human fashion trying
to shut the warnings up.  Given that some maintainers won't look at
anything until all Sashiko is happy it's a totally reasonable thing to
do but I can't imagine it's an inspiring experience.  A lot of that has
been with valid but not interesting or useful issues (the stereotypical
example is something like missing return value checks on a MMIO regmap).
Even with people who appear to be LLM users I've seen people going all
weekend with no human review only to find that the first human review is
that the approach is completely wrong and they were wasting their time
fixing the detail issues that were being flagged which I can't imagine
is especially pleasant.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]