From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f202.google.com (mail-pl1-f202.google.com [209.85.214.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC57D3BB668 for ; Tue, 19 May 2026 20:25:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.202 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779222336; cv=none; b=Oi8d1tLSHNuIf3PhByq5iD6zZrBLi8VLnPn1+gYIjnN13+sBSQU/WqE1UjW3gYvDSIbklcqwxqkWpn1GUn2R/1fjtmQUMmvFfCW++gYJHI8yBhRRF/RJ0MngdwKlM3A5AR7J7SDJuDZ1h+BX5RmTtVxQaVp7dGZudzKPN6BoaOc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779222336; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sRc2NkcvEfIct1sxSx0C/IFyIPhCxb/rmsqZTNHj6+4=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=f95YxZy2+7plBOGmXA+VzWYg1IINCMA/P2FJWhfftfLjzW1TOvP0B3UifZxTpitmri64+SxPgBEsS/54kawL71XYLL63G5TGVwr4QGSSwi/uAV2AEO7Ukgo7hbm4qDeMc1iO3AwYhfAbQEYhMmx1udsIUomeynQgWwaY3F5WtAo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=qttdrzbQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.202 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--seanjc.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="qttdrzbQ" Received: by mail-pl1-f202.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2b9b8137828so42246555ad.0 for ; Tue, 19 May 2026 13:25:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20251104; t=1779222333; x=1779827133; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cV0r3jKPfp4zv5FaaUB3cGXxaoCrk2SAbq84AyKv7tw=; b=qttdrzbQvmgalceQJTTyGqFUG4gib0JVkEcPPUMU+g2l3oqGgj5fDnpVu8ILX0aoAu Tu1p8oDDiTnTQMO+9IqyHDY4zc2UIixyHqczxxr6MdeNjNHzUWbuZPRuKLNRiOxdRCYu dV61z4layUlmdoHkQBgpFe3pzdtP49E+DKvalFNqa3jroAAPMjp0maHIawyz+2gRxJyu kbS/UBgZNKO3LswD/Zgap8IuNbxPfSLc5Pp0Umi5baeSSDcXBp85BU77fr9pR1FCQjL4 UClufRr2e07s6PMRub+oSSpyAYJByhwg1MUKv0bMRed2E3wF57mModoOttVijlrmgOl0 HuDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1779222333; x=1779827133; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cV0r3jKPfp4zv5FaaUB3cGXxaoCrk2SAbq84AyKv7tw=; b=NkeELO3kVM7UG6Waxy9FbZK/H7y3fsu2QZV3jBXmZqNTH81C32LDQxzPro/Toh7K/4 V77uPGKSvWtcL6eOqQwj8PjCVL83VOhXyfo1je5fCfwFVE3Eh/9t5A38RB2kyq10xYBp KOfd0Pn3zn1RnKl88YiJLK021jO3IicOqom2D2X2utPgipyUdIFHVBoVwwasfw5VP42A QEGjZOj6tC/zBO41gduOP4Atq91mJkYPN+HZnYwnxlZdIWsUKdKSTqY27HNQS8H+BHq5 erMs/1PO2Y9pPIkIKsIUaL6D2b4nAomc70/sGeBsODvJs3tvIfiplVI9LYqMb+/zSrQ5 OlWw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/FgovZaVSp5kvtehcGNC4roJ2GovxT6tSNnxxzut+X2umglXHy+YzrQU7R+VFwqfsfLM8=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwXbE7DLvmIV3DbmDCB6iJ0pDnquxUk8cS+Fo/yuOJrUlQXHn7K +ng0JHjUCspA/264M7+FxqLez3XqvB/l9Tixawi4xbDmUL1hrTvzseyyPBzpI1pcwgRMUJjPTri ay9HrNg== X-Received: from plbmc15.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:903:2b0f:b0:2b0:af76:bcc2]) (user=seanjc job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:902:d512:b0:2b4:5f96:184d with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-2bd7e86c6a4mr238530365ad.5.1779222332159; Tue, 19 May 2026 13:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 20:25:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Sashiko review email for kvm@vger.kernel.org? From: Sean Christopherson To: Janosch Frank Cc: Tianrui Zhao , Bibo Mao , Huacai Chen , Madhavan Srinivasan , Nicholas Piggin , Anup Patel , Atish Patra , Christian Borntraeger , Claudio Imbrenda , David Hildenbrand , Vitaly Kuznetsov , David Woodhouse , Paul Durrant , Eric Farman , Matthew Rosato , Halil Pasic , Nipun Gupta , Nikhil Agarwal , Alex Williamson , Ioana Ciornei , Longfang Liu , Julian Ruess , Kirti Wankhede , Yishai Hadas , Ankit Agrawal , Jason Gunthorpe , Shameer Kolothum , Kevin Tian , Brett Creeley , Eric Auger , Mostafa Saleh , Pranjal Shrivastava , Giovanni Cabiddu , David Matlack , "=?utf-8?Q?Micha=C5=82?= Winiarski" , Stefan Hajnoczi , Stefano Garzarella , Cornelia Huck , Jason Wang , "Eugenio =?utf-8?B?UMOpcmV6?=" , Kiryl Shutsemau , Dave Hansen , Rick Edgecombe , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Paolo Bonzini , Roman Gushchin , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" +KVM and LKML, which I stupidly forgot to Cc :-( On Tue, May 19, 2026, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 5/19/26 02:18, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > Hello people with a MAINTAINERS entry that uses kvm@vger.kernel.org as a mailing list! > > > > How would y'all feel about enabling Sashiko[*] emails for kvm@vger.kernel.org? For > > a variety of reasons, Sashiko currently only logs its reviews to https://sashiko.dev > > by default. If subsystems want to receive on-list mails, they need to opt-in. > > > > I really, really want to enable email reviews for KVM x86, as Sashiko has found > > an almost embarassing number of bugs that (a) would have been painful to debug > > had they escaped review and (b) I'm not convinced would have been found by > > traditional review. And for me at least the signal:noise ratio is more than good > > enough. There are still hallucinations and false positives from time to time, > > but the good outweighs the bad by quite a bit, it's cathartic to flame AI when > > it's wrong, and worst case scenario I can simply ignore Sashiko. > > > > But, currently Sashiko is only capable of making decisions based on mailing list, > > i.e. as things stand, _all_ of kvm@ needs to opt-in. Before I badger Roman to > > add bespoke logic to Sashiko's email flow, e.g. to special case KVM x86 in some > > way, I want to see if there's a general consensus in favor (or against) enabling > > review emails. > > > > Thanks! > > > > [*] https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko > > Sure, ^ |- This > as long as there will be no mails from Sashiko or at most one mail per thread. is in conflict with the caveats here, as per-patch email is exactly what I am proposing (the current state is that Sashiko never sends mails). > I'd appreciate something like "I found problems in this thread, here's the > link, go look if you want to". While this would be easier than manually searching through the web site, there would still be a sizeable barrier between contributors/maintainers and Sashiko feedback. E.g. to click through an out-of-band source, copy+paste the response into the original thread, etc. What are your concerns with per-patch email? Hallucinations and noise are definitely a potential problem, but IMO that can be handled by per-subsystem policy. E.g. if the signal:noise ratio is particularly poor for a subsystem, that subsystem can document/state that responding to, or even reading, Sashiko mails is completely optional. Beyond that, I'm struggling to understand why folks are opposed to getting mails from Sashiko, especially for a list as large as kvm@. As others pointed out, the volume for kvm@ is already high, and it's trivially easy to create a filter for mails from sashiko-bot@kernel.org. I.e. it seems highly unlikely that mail from Sashiko will require anyone to significantly rethink and/or rework their workflow, whereas the web site approach is very disruptive to email-based review, at least for me.