From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 59CD2330B28; Sun, 17 May 2026 22:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779056541; cv=none; b=Xjb09SFCwVX4QSb4qcVCsmOKJisAwwZirCve/tSihEapSTs4Csun1S7yB5DHaomMPz+fJki4EK+/YoM7o+KPRfDC47yA9iBmUMu8BfkuGDklWLTzvCgXZiLW64WFpI16tHAXPd6AgKIh2UjiCDFQAdpD5u43uJ3saknUAsWrcvs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779056541; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FoRmOfvN97ZLKgyYGjA01K9uLbg5xwboy5j5u2hKvDA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=it7mgGZYqNFoJHN6aA2q/Yrh91ug0gRQAdhtNvofvQ1JJApoyKn1HCAQdLhHjqri9VW0o+2zgqPiIrlzOdpWcRhmPrXGHNbxGO2l/7QI8a5LIWeIMbkV/qAOogCYylB7OOs167AtoA1KE2+ywH1mJf3BmzrkKf+5vjl0tZk1pV8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=W1o1XvxK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="W1o1XvxK" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (unknown [IPv6:2a01:cb1d:8ee:8600:346a:417a:479f:f6a1]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 605C9296; Mon, 18 May 2026 00:21:58 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1779056518; bh=FoRmOfvN97ZLKgyYGjA01K9uLbg5xwboy5j5u2hKvDA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=W1o1XvxKK64lYOXX+FNNoIoxPh4tnu89Kb+TSlZb/FElB5SBtuYUAy/w6RQoUG+CE PGR6JaJva5VHnCigXlYJLYO3xV0mWRebWnagfDV76Cy4nepnTzyjQ4Ph0YiiSNNccH SAyIQmemUhMZYTyM2inLGaJShfOqLnganLQHCDco= Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 00:22:06 +0200 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Theodore Tso Cc: Greg KH , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Roman Gushchin , Krzysztof Kozlowski , debarbos@redhat.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Guenter Roeck , sashiko-bot@kernel.org, sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev, sashiko@lists.linux.dev, Linux Kernel Workflows , Linux Kernel Mailing List , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kfree@google.com Subject: Re: Stop false review statements Message-ID: <20260517222206.GA17272@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <4f3d7f48-5766-425b-91f6-0acdb5554584@kernel.org> <07602616-412B-4ED8-95D7-588C0D077EE3@linux.dev> <20260517120556.248852d8@foz.lan> <2026051758-superbowl-baritone-2705@gregkh> <20260517162912.GA51520@macsyma-wired.lan> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260517162912.GA51520@macsyma-wired.lan> On Sun, May 17, 2026 at 12:29:12PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > It should also be noted that Intel's zero-day bot was (a) closed > source, and (b) was sending its test regression reports with the > linux-kernel mailing list cc'ed, and no one really complained because > it was so useful, and if Intel was willing to use very expensive > hardware in their data center to contribute reports, so long as the > reports were useful and the false-positive noise was low enough, we > decided to be grateful and not worry (too much) about the fact that > Intel's zero-day bot was closed source. (There was indeed some > grumbling in the bar at Plumbers, of course. :-) The 0-day but was a closed-source front-end to orchestrate analysis tools that are open-source (compilers, static analyzers, ...). Sashiko is an open-source front-end to orchestrate analysis tools that are closed-source. That's the complete opposite, so I'm not sure how relevant the comparison is. Comparing with Coverity may be more relevant. > In my opinion, we should be doing the same for Sashiko, and that's the > decision which the ext4 developers have made --- at least for ext4 > patches, after an experiment where we only sent reviews to the patch > authors and the maintainer, people were satisifed that false positive > rate was low enough (with the caveats that I had previously mentioned, > but we were willing to live with them because at least for us, it was > useful enough), that we will be requesting that Sashiko reviews be > cc'ed to the ext4 mailing list. > > I realize that there are some extra sensitivities around AI / LLM's, > but from the perspective of reviewing patches, I don't see any > difference between this and other closed source tools that we've used, > such as Coverity and the Zero-day bot. Not everyone will agree, of > course, but at the moment, this is a decision that we are making on a > subsystem by subsystem basis, which again, has strong historical > precedence. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart