From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA44DC982ED for ; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:21:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc: To:From:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=7YuDe9pA1WPnbu9k5jZuDfnztXNOTbiX+JI4KYMHh14=; b=ZzdDkfmHqWM8OKDOPQfizv5eZs FuxLu51DsNe/wNB6JHMRWT6g8UAKa4lkkAx7TD/hpcgfmrt5eWb6Ot6FMFDUHWR5BYkClTnywOped DiUUB/h3UCsrqujFEdc3GIMV3AbbUVpyvZy9PYN6WycXtc7kre91jSkuvZVtHdZkB9N+5FitrLf0O o0mCdfbpFPg+DBpBqTDh77mv+p4sTb7OLRhHVh73nNHgS28Cd9U4KQwOcZClfiUzkcDmIMoDzkTt2 DIZpl38ee6EYMpYntt3JWMjyuTHJrN5oGX2JXNG2hz2wtNT35L21vJ9q1eNm7XVKTBUhPqCaWef0S oCDqRa4A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1x8gln-00000002obX-06mH; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:21:31 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1x8glm-00000002obC-0zrM for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:21:30 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C713A4403B; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:21:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB8811F000FF; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 16:21:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790007689; bh=7YuDe9pA1WPnbu9k5jZuDfnztXNOTbiX+JI4KYMHh14=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=lZzAz+egWCoJeubPyiX0H2yFFcdevkHcHUuSNlxjHvy0aUTufTeNdrgUPOeUtOUa7 cH0tNvE/QBOMIGGxC1wgpRw9j/rDCbvZUTuMNkLAOp8JD7E2qRur4IfcDwCgKcfD2j CDefaVzAyJinaWuZq59KXzcyl5xFe39Ye+REKJ6MguGW5l/C1EldYKAbKIxOtu2c0M IKGERUD5+IK5IvQS4WgcGfWAChqLtpLX0ARRlqGMw4uTYzOYb7qFhN0dZCjiYHdH5q T///EExEOewALz2aOO8/hs48z6/uGshvkjAFvuLPyFKRg/OL6YoSC/GG4H9Tbk8Ec1 kkUbdF2pZ24Fw== From: Pratyush Yadav To: Roman Gushchin Cc: David Matlack , Pratyush Yadav , Baoquan He , Mike Rapoport , kexec@lists.infradead.org, Andrew Morton , Pasha Tatashin , Dave Young , Alexander Graf Subject: Re: RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org In-Reply-To: (Roman Gushchin's message of "Wed, 2 Sep 2026 18:02:29 -0700") References: Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 18:21:26 +0200 Message-ID: <2vxzse3260e1.fsf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: kexec@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "kexec" Errors-To: kexec-bounces+kexec=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Sep 02 2026, Roman Gushchin wrote: >> On Sep 2, 2026, at 10:59=E2=80=AFAM, David Matlack = wrote: >>=20 >> =EF=BB=BFOn Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 2:18=E2=80=AFAM Pratyush Yadav wrote: >>>=20 >>> +Cc Roman because I am complaining about Sashiko ;-) >>>=20 >>>> On Wed, Sep 02 2026, Baoquan He wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> On 09/02/26 at 11:04am, Mike Rapoport wrote: >>>>> Hi Baoquan, >>>>>=20 >>>>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 01:52:51PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: >>>>>> On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote: [...] >>> This is a side topic, but if we only Cc the list then Sashiko won't Cc >>> the other people in the thread, like the usual "reply to all" every mail >>> clients does. It will _only_ Cc the list. See [0] for example. >>>=20 >>> I don't think that is a good idea, because Sashiko might complain about >>> something, and then the patch author can reply to the complaint. People >>> who are not subscribed to the list will neither see Sashiko's complaint >>> nor the author's response. So they lose a useful part of the patch >>> review process. >>>=20 >>> I am one of those people. I don't subscribe to any mailing lists and >>> instead use lei [1] to fetch them. I treat my inbox as the primary >>> stream of patches, and then glance at the lists every now and then. If I >>> get some patches in my inbox but then I don't get any of the follow-ups >>> from the author to Sashiko, that's annoying. Sure, I might see them on >>> the list later, but it is still annoying. > > It feels like there are two types of people: some know how to use > email filters and some don=E2=80=99t. Unfortunately, the latter group is = often > very vocal about what they don=E2=80=99t want to see on mailing lists. I = can > easily see the problem with too much ai-generated noise (and useful > information as well), so no complaints from me, just saying that there > is a reason sashiko is fairly conservative here. > >>>=20 >>> And of course, there might be patches that touch multiple subsystems and >>> maintainers of that subsystem might not subscribe to or track kexec@ at >>> all. So they will entirely miss the conversation. >>>=20 >>> If Sashiko is useful enough to send replies on the list, then I think it >>> is useful enough to reply to everyone. >>=20 >> It looks like this can be configured: >>=20 >> - reply_all=3Dtrue will have Sashiko reply to everyone on the To/Cc line. >> - cc_individuals=3Dtrue will have Sashiko include all inidividuals from = the >> To/Cc line of the original patch. >>=20 >>>=20 >>> IIRC some people have complained in the past about automatically getting >>> replies from Sashiko so maybe that is why this behaviour exists? Roman, >>> is that correct? Is there any appetite yet to change that behaviour? > > Can you, please, describe, what behavior do you want? Sorry for the late reply. The behaviour is already an option that can be configured (reply_all=3Dtrue), I just wasn't aware that was an option. So I don't think any change is needed. IMO this should be the default but I can see why you might not want to do it just yet. > >>>=20 >>> Or could we perhaps have an unsubscribe mechanism where people who don't >>> want to see anything from Sashiko can unsubscribe themselves and Sashiko >>> will skip them when replying? > > This is the territory I don=E2=80=99t really want to go, honestly. Not a > dealbreaker if there is a very strong reason to implement it, but I > don=E2=80=99t think we have similar lists for other tools like syzbot or = the > build verifier. I feel it=E2=80=99s more about the politics around ai the= n a > real technical reason (it=E2=80=99s like super trivial to drop emails fro= m a > specific sender), so I=E2=80=99d avoid this if possible. Yeah, fair enough. [...] --=20 Regards, Pratyush Yadav