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 EEE0835E949 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:14:03 +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=1784150045; cv=none; b=B+vPj2Prf9JUrPHBlAIAGZIyhYWBEb6VNf0ABhdzZ4oxLTVecD/khWsOgUYYbD3M+J1hqZTQtHVK9S/gR70nctYJ4VgwlTKVQd+o5FBP3pTmbCcH5lz9CHs0DXQRhbEahxkUiZLsDiBJHqSXB4YW9DoIC1gxu4/dyUa+UYaXKWc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784150045; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JjL5R3PM21jYjL3dhKTuqLG5KDGeSP9kpjzJIYM4Xk8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=B/7s/jh9KQ0sG1EpENxeihVwHb8RGcY1eTEBQfdnLOZo6GhVsmvI0dXAra2zllNADq39eFPOzn6zHSeAJFCSFhq8DBS0UvJBUSzUOYTRA/33/uCCiWUTsEa3AtNuudJAWAG+IUcJ6L+OB5AIc9i5ep/usUXQX4o13YIhB4bdvKY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=TIDL9Mev; 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=pass 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="TIDL9Mev" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org ([151.240.45.27]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 66FLDdNs008034 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:13:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1784150024; bh=uYq+byWWyif9wmZSPGAPnACZIKEOE0Zwz0myKhUMrS4=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=TIDL9Mevy2mpVgOgGEYrJIKp9tZPKCNEuamo1/3zYBVLFwH4cbTFcyzeV7cS6W9la Ek5zts/zRfs1E2X0dn5P3YKEvNuXvJIj6fGVHzm+gWDWnC6ACmzIDOo5AqGHFMR64M glfatvkEt98MX0SpNS8HO99Bob6cXxG2aitIKRfU/vMfnnr0jjjjeO801GOXSxI1v2 ULy3nj7bD93RdEDNVXn2O84obn5GSZbeS8c06Fz+3fJOpLS1UFrLV5toO2DVNXK8ct CLzZLkvR4HHqqJo5Einp8Vsy5AoJw2eGUppKJomeDgCP4jLPcrqdlnHhvR84wBdB2H WkBklTDyM3a1A== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 80A5DA321C5; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:13:39 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: Ihor Solodrai , Roman Gushchin , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Derek Barbosa , Matthieu Baerts , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Jason Gunthorpe , Steven Rostedt , users@kernel.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Stephen Finucane , bpf , Chris Mason , Christian Brauner , Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko? Message-ID: References: <87wlv2jq4t.fsf@linux.dev> <20260713095538.3d5e86f1@foz.lan> <20260713094120.GD1127719@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260713220427.582b28bf@foz.lan> <7ia4mrvtrxjl.fsf@castle.c.googlers.com> <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <00a244f8-5be6-4ee7-b5b1-e4cbdcd4fc77@linux.dev> <20260715163921.GH1778116@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <153db0fa-65ac-49de-9bf5-456c9639954c@linux.dev> <20260715190654.GK1778116@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@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: <20260715190654.GK1778116@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 10:06:54PM -0500, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > This came from a consideration on the impact of false positives > and other hallucinations on junior developers. You keep claiming that there is an awful lot of false positives and other hallucinations. That's an assertion that needs to be tested to make sure that we're not relying on a few pieces of anecdata. How does this compare with false positives and bogus recommendations from certain human reviewers? After all, I can think of at *least* one human reviewer whose reviews are far worse than Sashiko's in false positives. That might or might not be the same person as the one Mark has said that he has a stock e-mail reply telling a junior developer that they should be free to ignore reviews from that particular human being. :-) Each maintainer can decide how much they trust Shashiko reviews. At least for my subsystem, I haven't seen the hallucionations that you are continually citing, certainly not as a common case. I will note that even experienced human reviewers have occasionally flagged an issue, only to say, "my bad, you're right, it's fine" after a discussion with the patch author. And that's OK. When a human being makes a false positive criticism, no one responds with "I am feeling demeaned as a human being!" Perhaps we should be giving tool-generated reviews (whether it is via checkpatch or Sashiko) with a similar level of grace? At least with tool-generated reviews, we can send bug reports asking that the tool can be improved. At least with one particular human reviewer that I have in mind, no attempts asking that person to improve their reviews hasn't been helpful. Bottom line --- if you are making the claim the Sashiko reviews are rife with false positives, all I can say is <>. - Ted