Re: [PATCH 7.2 v10 0/2] skip redundant sync IPIs when TLB flush sent them

SeongJae Park
2026-04-25T01:12:34Z

On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 12:18:49 -0700 Yosry Ahmed <yosry@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 12:09 PM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
> <david@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/24/26 20:50, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 11:36 AM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
> > > <david@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 4/24/26 16:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Why do you think so?
> > >>
> > >> The most important part for me is that authors are aware of the reports.
> > >>
> > >> Sending them as a mail forces people to publicly reply to the feedback, and at
> > >> this point in time, I am not convinced that that is the right approach.
> > >
> > > But I imagine it's useful for reviewers to see Sashiko's feedback as
> > > well (without having to go look on the website).
> >
> > I read a lot of them, yes. Maintainers know how to find it.
> >
> > I even think maintainers should briefly go over it before applying to spot if
> > anything in there is still left unanswered. But that doesn't need a mailing list
> > posting.
> >
> > I enjoy if contributors are aware of the reports and use that input in a
> > reasonable, like Zi just did [1]. And if they are unsure, they usually ask to
> > double-check.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/15191F7F-0D10-4907-B963-DA4EA0E36EB6@nvidia.com
> >
> > > It's possible that
> > > Sashiko is right but the author isn't convinced, so getting more eyes
> > > on the feedback would help.
> >
> > Forcing contributors to reply to everything. I don't like that, in particular
> > not as long as there is no way for contributors to run it early in private.
> >
> > In most cases, contributors just do the reasonable thing: incorporate the
> > feedback in a new version.
>
> The usefulness of the mailing list posting is that it makes it easier
> to respond and discuss the review. Yes, what Zi did is great, but it
> would be nice if contributors/reviewers didn't need to manually quote
> Sashiko.

I agree. I had to implement hkml-Sashiko integration [1] to avoid the manual
works. People could use such existign tools or develop their own. But I can
say Sashiko's direct mailing service has improved my dasy much more than the
hkml feature.

>
> That being said, I understand the concerns and the pressure to respond
> to everything as you mention below. Maybe at some point this will
> become an easier decision to make as reviews become more refined.

I agree here, too. Apparently [2] my tooling-motivated Sashiko reply
forwarding didn't convince all. My honest feeling was that it is not only
unconvincing but might making someone slightly annoyed.

I personally feel no problem at Sashiko review is publicly replied to my
patches, but I understand my personality is not necessarily same to others. If
some change can make someone happy while also making someone sad, I'm up to
reducing sadness.

[1] https://github.com/sjp38/hackermail/blob/master/USAGE.md#forwarding-sashikodev-statuscomments-to-mailing-list
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/20260331045245.67438-1-sj@kernel.org/

Thanks,
SJ