RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

[David Matlack]

Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,

I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
enabled.

I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:

  https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474

I wanted to start this thread to call attention to that pull request
and see if there are any objections, or opinions about how it should
be configured.

Thanks.
--David

Re: RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

[Mike Rapoport]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:27:34PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,
> 
> I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
> kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
> reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
> enabled.
> 
> I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:
> 
>   https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474

diff --git a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
index e6e4fb57f..e9ad97708 100644
--- a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
+++ b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
@@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ reply_to_author = false
 cc_individuals = false
 cc = ["Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>", "Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>", "Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>"]
 
+[subsystems.kexec]
+lists = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]
+reply_to_author = true
+send_positive_review = true

Do we really want those?

+cc = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]

Please add me here.

 [subsystems.kvm]
 lists = ["kvm@vger.kernel.org"]
 reply_to_author = true
 
> I wanted to start this thread to call attention to that pull request
> and see if there are any objections, or opinions about how it should
> be configured.
> 
> Thanks.
> --David

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Re: RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

[Baoquan He]

On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:27:34PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> > Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,
> > 
> > I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
> > kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
> > reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
> > enabled.
> > 
> > I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:
> > 
> >   https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474
> 
> diff --git a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> index e6e4fb57f..e9ad97708 100644
> --- a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> +++ b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> @@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ reply_to_author = false
>  cc_individuals = false
>  cc = ["Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>", "Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>", "Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>"]
>  
> +[subsystems.kexec]
> +lists = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]
> +reply_to_author = true
> +send_positive_review = true
> 
> Do we really want those?

Some components don't want to CC list, then other people are welcome to
drop any comment during reviewing, while cc to maintainer and author
looks good to me. Just an input, no objection to any move.

> 
> +cc = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]
> 
> Please add me here.
> 
>  [subsystems.kvm]
>  lists = ["kvm@vger.kernel.org"]
>  reply_to_author = true
>  
> > I wanted to start this thread to call attention to that pull request
> > and see if there are any objections, or opinions about how it should
> > be configured.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > --David
> 
> -- 
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.

Re: RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

[Mike Rapoport]

Hi Baoquan,

On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 01:52:51PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:27:34PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> > > Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,
> > > 
> > > I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
> > > kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
> > > reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
> > > enabled.
> > > 
> > > I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:
> > > 
> > >   https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474
> > 
> > diff --git a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > index e6e4fb57f..e9ad97708 100644
> > --- a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > +++ b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > @@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ reply_to_author = false
> >  cc_individuals = false
> >  cc = ["Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>", "Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>", "Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>"]
> >  
> > +[subsystems.kexec]
> > +lists = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]
> > +reply_to_author = true
> > +send_positive_review = true
> > 
> > Do we really want those?
> 
> Some components don't want to CC list, then other people are welcome to
> drop any comment during reviewing, while cc to maintainer and author
> looks good to me. Just an input, no objection to any move.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant do we really want extra emails saying
sashiko is happy?

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Re: RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

[Baoquan He]

On 09/02/26 at 11:04am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Hi Baoquan,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 01:52:51PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:27:34PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> > > > Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,
> > > > 
> > > > I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
> > > > kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
> > > > reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
> > > > enabled.
> > > > 
> > > > I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:
> > > > 
> > > >   https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > > index e6e4fb57f..e9ad97708 100644
> > > --- a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > > +++ b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > > @@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ reply_to_author = false
> > >  cc_individuals = false
> > >  cc = ["Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>", "Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>", "Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>"]
> > >  
> > > +[subsystems.kexec]
> > > +lists = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]
> > > +reply_to_author = true
> > > +send_positive_review = true
> > > 
> > > Do we really want those?
> > 
> > Some components don't want to CC list, then other people are welcome to
> > drop any comment during reviewing, while cc to maintainer and author
> > looks good to me. Just an input, no objection to any move.
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant do we really want extra emails saying
> sashiko is happy?

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood, I thought you had agreed to introduce
sashiko to part of list/author/maintainer or all.

I think there are two different ways and they have different impact:

1) CC list (CC author and maintainer can be ignored beause all people
can see it)
  This equals to cc author and push other reviewers away. And no
  reviewers will be patient and curious enough to check the sashiko
  report except of maintainers. Because maintainers need pick patch
  and may check if all reported issues are handled;

2) Cc maintainers when patch is cooked
  Maintainers tell patch author to check the report. Maybe CC patch
  author directly can save maintainers' effort. 

I personally think 2) is good. About whether introducing sashiko, 
I would vote yes. I buy token by myself, sashiko would be a plus.

Thanks
Baoquan

Re: RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

[Pratyush Yadav]

+Cc Roman because I am complaining about Sashiko ;-)

On Wed, Sep 02 2026, Baoquan He wrote:

> On 09/02/26 at 11:04am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> Hi Baoquan,
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 01:52:51PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>> > On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:27:34PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
>> > > > Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,
>> > > > 
>> > > > I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
>> > > > kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
>> > > > reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
>> > > > enabled.
>> > > > 
>> > > > I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:
>> > > > 
>> > > >   https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474
>> > > 
>> > > diff --git a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
>> > > index e6e4fb57f..e9ad97708 100644
>> > > --- a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
>> > > +++ b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
>> > > @@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ reply_to_author = false
>> > >  cc_individuals = false
>> > >  cc = ["Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>", "Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>", "Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>"]
>> > >  
>> > > +[subsystems.kexec]
>> > > +lists = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]
>> > > +reply_to_author = true
>> > > +send_positive_review = true
>> > > 
>> > > Do we really want those?
>> > 
>> > Some components don't want to CC list, then other people are welcome to
>> > drop any comment during reviewing, while cc to maintainer and author
>> > looks good to me. Just an input, no objection to any move.
>> 
>> Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant do we really want extra emails saying
>> sashiko is happy?
>
> Oh, sorry. I misunderstood, I thought you had agreed to introduce
> sashiko to part of list/author/maintainer or all.
>
> I think there are two different ways and they have different impact:
>
> 1) CC list (CC author and maintainer can be ignored beause all people
> can see it)

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.

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.

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.

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.

If Sashiko is useful enough to send replies on the list, then I think it
is useful enough to reply to everyone.

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?

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?

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20260902072059.90ADC1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org/
[1] https://public-inbox.org/lei.txt

>   This equals to cc author and push other reviewers away. And no
>   reviewers will be patient and curious enough to check the sashiko
>   report except of maintainers. Because maintainers need pick patch
>   and may check if all reported issues are handled;
>
> 2) Cc maintainers when patch is cooked
>   Maintainers tell patch author to check the report. Maybe CC patch
>   author directly can save maintainers' effort. 
>
> I personally think 2) is good. About whether introducing sashiko, 
> I would vote yes. I buy token by myself, sashiko would be a plus.

FWIW, Sashiko already tracks the kexec@ list and you can see all the
patches in the web interface [2]. So you don't need to burn your tokens
on reviewing kexec patches ;-)

What David is proposing is to send those reviews to the list.

[2] https://sashiko.dev/#/?list=org.infradead.lists.kexec

>
> Thanks
> Baoquan

-- 
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav

Re: RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

[Baoquan He]

On 09/02/26 at 11:18am, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> +Cc Roman because I am complaining about Sashiko ;-)
> 
> On Wed, Sep 02 2026, Baoquan He wrote:
> 
> > On 09/02/26 at 11:04am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >> Hi Baoquan,
> >> 
> >> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 01:52:51PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> >> > On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:27:34PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> >> > > > Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
> >> > > > kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
> >> > > > reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
> >> > > > enabled.
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:
> >> > > > 
> >> > > >   https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474
> >> > > 
> >> > > diff --git a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> >> > > index e6e4fb57f..e9ad97708 100644
> >> > > --- a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> >> > > +++ b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> >> > > @@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ reply_to_author = false
> >> > >  cc_individuals = false
> >> > >  cc = ["Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>", "Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>", "Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>"]
> >> > >  
> >> > > +[subsystems.kexec]
> >> > > +lists = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]
> >> > > +reply_to_author = true
> >> > > +send_positive_review = true
> >> > > 
> >> > > Do we really want those?
> >> > 
> >> > Some components don't want to CC list, then other people are welcome to
> >> > drop any comment during reviewing, while cc to maintainer and author
> >> > looks good to me. Just an input, no objection to any move.
> >> 
> >> Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant do we really want extra emails saying
> >> sashiko is happy?
> >
> > Oh, sorry. I misunderstood, I thought you had agreed to introduce
> > sashiko to part of list/author/maintainer or all.
> >
> > I think there are two different ways and they have different impact:
> >
> > 1) CC list (CC author and maintainer can be ignored beause all people
> > can see it)
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> If Sashiko is useful enough to send replies on the list, then I think it
> is useful enough to reply to everyone.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20260902072059.90ADC1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org/
> [1] https://public-inbox.org/lei.txt
> 
> >   This equals to cc author and push other reviewers away. And no
> >   reviewers will be patient and curious enough to check the sashiko
> >   report except of maintainers. Because maintainers need pick patch
> >   and may check if all reported issues are handled;
> >
> > 2) Cc maintainers when patch is cooked
> >   Maintainers tell patch author to check the report. Maybe CC patch
> >   author directly can save maintainers' effort. 
> >
> > I personally think 2) is good. About whether introducing sashiko, 
> > I would vote yes. I buy token by myself, sashiko would be a plus.
> 
> FWIW, Sashiko already tracks the kexec@ list and you can see all the
> patches in the web interface [2]. So you don't need to burn your tokens
> on reviewing kexec patches ;-)

Thats's cool and it's enough. No, I am not saying sashiko will save
tokens for maintainers. I meant if people post patches, sashiko can
review and report from different models' side, that save patch authors'
tokens to some extent. Maybe most of people don't need to consider
this. :-)

> 
> What David is proposing is to send those reviews to the list.
> 
> [2] https://sashiko.dev/#/?list=org.infradead.lists.kexec
> 
> >
> > Thanks
> > Baoquan
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Pratyush Yadav

Re: RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

[David Matlack]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 1:04 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Baoquan,
>
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 01:52:51PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:27:34PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> > > > Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
> > > > kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
> > > > reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
> > > > enabled.
> > > >
> > > > I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:
> > > >
> > > >   https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474
> > >
> > > diff --git a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > > index e6e4fb57f..e9ad97708 100644
> > > --- a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > > +++ b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > > @@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ reply_to_author = false
> > >  cc_individuals = false
> > >  cc = ["Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>", "Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>", "Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>"]
> > >
> > > +[subsystems.kexec]
> > > +lists = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]
> > > +reply_to_author = true
> > > +send_positive_review = true
> > >
> > > Do we really want those?
> >
> > Some components don't want to CC list, then other people are welcome to
> > drop any comment during reviewing, while cc to maintainer and author
> > looks good to me. Just an input, no objection to any move.
>
> Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant do we really want extra emails saying
> sashiko is happy?

This is currently enabled on the PCI mailing list and I have found it
useful there. It makes it trivial to distinguish between "Sashiko
reviewed the patch and found no issues" and "Sashiko did not review
the patch" (could not apply it, backend bugs, whatever) without having
to go to the Sashiko web UI to confirm. I can stay entirely on the
mailing list.

But I am ok with dropping it if you feel strongly. It is a small thing.

Re: RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

[Mike Rapoport]

On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 09:29:55AM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 1:04 AM Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Baoquan,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 01:52:51PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:27:34PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> > > > > Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
> > > > > kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
> > > > > reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
> > > > > enabled.
> > > > >
> > > > > I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:
> > > > >
> > > > >   https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > > > index e6e4fb57f..e9ad97708 100644
> > > > --- a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > > > +++ b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> > > > @@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ reply_to_author = false
> > > >  cc_individuals = false
> > > >  cc = ["Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>", "Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>", "Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>"]
> > > >
> > > > +[subsystems.kexec]
> > > > +lists = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]
> > > > +reply_to_author = true
> > > > +send_positive_review = true
> > > >
> > > > Do we really want those?
> > >
> > > Some components don't want to CC list, then other people are welcome to
> > > drop any comment during reviewing, while cc to maintainer and author
> > > looks good to me. Just an input, no objection to any move.
> >
> > Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant do we really want extra emails saying
> > sashiko is happy?
> 
> This is currently enabled on the PCI mailing list and I have found it
> useful there. It makes it trivial to distinguish between "Sashiko
> reviewed the patch and found no issues" and "Sashiko did not review
> the patch" (could not apply it, backend bugs, whatever) without having
> to go to the Sashiko web UI to confirm. I can stay entirely on the
> mailing list.
> 
> But I am ok with dropping it if you feel strongly. It is a small thing.

Nah, no strong feelings. I can always /dev/null some emails on my side :)

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.

Re: RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

[David Matlack]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 2:18 AM Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> +Cc Roman because I am complaining about Sashiko ;-)
>
> On Wed, Sep 02 2026, Baoquan He wrote:
>
> > On 09/02/26 at 11:04am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >> Hi Baoquan,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 01:52:51PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> >> > On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:27:34PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> >> > > > Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
> >> > > > kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
> >> > > > reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
> >> > > > enabled.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >   https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474
> >> > >
> >> > > diff --git a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> >> > > index e6e4fb57f..e9ad97708 100644
> >> > > --- a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> >> > > +++ b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> >> > > @@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ reply_to_author = false
> >> > >  cc_individuals = false
> >> > >  cc = ["Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>", "Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>", "Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>"]
> >> > >
> >> > > +[subsystems.kexec]
> >> > > +lists = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]
> >> > > +reply_to_author = true
> >> > > +send_positive_review = true
> >> > >
> >> > > Do we really want those?
> >> >
> >> > Some components don't want to CC list, then other people are welcome to
> >> > drop any comment during reviewing, while cc to maintainer and author
> >> > looks good to me. Just an input, no objection to any move.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant do we really want extra emails saying
> >> sashiko is happy?
> >
> > Oh, sorry. I misunderstood, I thought you had agreed to introduce
> > sashiko to part of list/author/maintainer or all.
> >
> > I think there are two different ways and they have different impact:
> >
> > 1) CC list (CC author and maintainer can be ignored beause all people
> > can see it)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> If Sashiko is useful enough to send replies on the list, then I think it
> is useful enough to reply to everyone.

It looks like this can be configured:

 - reply_all=true will have Sashiko reply to everyone on the To/Cc line.
 - cc_individuals=true will have Sashiko include all inidividuals from the
   To/Cc line of the original patch.

>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20260902072059.90ADC1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org/
> [1] https://public-inbox.org/lei.txt
>
> >   This equals to cc author and push other reviewers away. And no
> >   reviewers will be patient and curious enough to check the sashiko
> >   report except of maintainers. Because maintainers need pick patch
> >   and may check if all reported issues are handled;
> >
> > 2) Cc maintainers when patch is cooked
> >   Maintainers tell patch author to check the report. Maybe CC patch
> >   author directly can save maintainers' effort.
> >
> > I personally think 2) is good. About whether introducing sashiko,
> > I would vote yes. I buy token by myself, sashiko would be a plus.
>
> FWIW, Sashiko already tracks the kexec@ list and you can see all the
> patches in the web interface [2]. So you don't need to burn your tokens
> on reviewing kexec patches ;-)
>
> What David is proposing is to send those reviews to the list.
>
> [2] https://sashiko.dev/#/?list=org.infradead.lists.kexec
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > Baoquan
>
> --
> Regards,
> Pratyush Yadav

Re: RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec@lists.infradead.org

[Roman Gushchin]

> On Sep 2, 2026, at 10:59 AM, David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 2:18 AM Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org> wrote:
>> 
>> +Cc Roman because I am complaining about Sashiko ;-)
>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 02 2026, Baoquan He wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 09/02/26 at 11:04am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>> Hi Baoquan,
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 01:52:51PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>>>>> On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:27:34PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
>>>>>>> kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
>>>>>>> reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
>>>>>>> enabled.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> diff --git a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
>>>>>> index e6e4fb57f..e9ad97708 100644
>>>>>> --- a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
>>>>>> +++ b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
>>>>>> @@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ reply_to_author = false
>>>>>> cc_individuals = false
>>>>>> cc = ["Chuck Lever <cel@kernel.org>", "Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>", "Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>"]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +[subsystems.kexec]
>>>>>> +lists = ["kexec@lists.infradead.org"]
>>>>>> +reply_to_author = true
>>>>>> +send_positive_review = true
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do we really want those?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Some components don't want to CC list, then other people are welcome to
>>>>> drop any comment during reviewing, while cc to maintainer and author
>>>>> looks good to me. Just an input, no objection to any move.
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant do we really want extra emails saying
>>>> sashiko is happy?
>>> 
>>> Oh, sorry. I misunderstood, I thought you had agreed to introduce
>>> sashiko to part of list/author/maintainer or all.
>>> 
>>> I think there are two different ways and they have different impact:
>>> 
>>> 1) CC list (CC author and maintainer can be ignored beause all people
>>> can see it)
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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’t.
Unfortunately, the latter group is often very vocal about what they don’t 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.

>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> If Sashiko is useful enough to send replies on the list, then I think it
>> is useful enough to reply to everyone.
> 
> It looks like this can be configured:
> 
> - reply_all=true will have Sashiko reply to everyone on the To/Cc line.
> - cc_individuals=true will have Sashiko include all inidividuals from the
>   To/Cc line of the original patch.
> 
>> 
>> 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?

>> 
>> 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’t really want to go, honestly. Not a dealbreaker if there is a very strong
reason to implement it, but I don’t think we have similar lists for other tools like syzbot or the build verifier.
I feel it’s more about the politics around ai then a real technical reason (it’s like super trivial to drop emails from
a specific sender), so I’d avoid this if possible.

Thanks

>> 
>> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20260902072059.90ADC1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org/
>> [1] https://public-inbox.org/lei.txt
>> 
>>>  This equals to cc author and push other reviewers away. And no
>>>  reviewers will be patient and curious enough to check the sashiko
>>>  report except of maintainers. Because maintainers need pick patch
>>>  and may check if all reported issues are handled;
>>> 
>>> 2) Cc maintainers when patch is cooked
>>>  Maintainers tell patch author to check the report. Maybe CC patch
>>>  author directly can save maintainers' effort.
>>> 
>>> I personally think 2) is good. About whether introducing sashiko,
>>> I would vote yes. I buy token by myself, sashiko would be a plus.
>> 
>> FWIW, Sashiko already tracks the kexec@ list and you can see all the
>> patches in the web interface [2]. So you don't need to burn your tokens
>> on reviewing kexec patches ;-)
>> 
>> What David is proposing is to send those reviews to the list.
>> 
>> [2] https://sashiko.dev/#/?list=org.infradead.lists.kexec
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Baoquan
>> 
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Pratyush Yadav