From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 EEECA3B9D84; Sun, 17 May 2026 15:56:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779033385; cv=none; b=Arm+Ye1hucZCLKZa727aFx3nFRXywoHRw68f9ADXmgPUXx1LNGqWX1EzS3afOMD4I7G/rfwgW898Frs87ctigZnQw4sMcF+3fqr7YTlzi1TZThXezNwusI8xhHmfbt2uG0zBl/W3zkTBoQbtLWcp/JWuzJfXDHJfRk6ZOhRVSPE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779033385; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/vouAuRiL4u0L4OBvt2/nK/kw0Ct2vHfD2gvkrC+aaA=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:To:From:Subject: References:In-Reply-To; b=asJtssE8ZMhcfWAx4inBML37m/s+GaLhFnidmPzqEZ59wVpDNnl6+ihK9WgK/NVtybNfNWK3ViY+Ktvn/V4VA6bBMi/t3S/Ctxum7jn/X9Ar47tfy/m61zI2d5S4/0MbnVZ6ta2EKwbupt+JBLj7DGd+7/i099r1AyQTZ5neWo4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=hkYUKrx3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="hkYUKrx3" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02A08C2BCB0; Sun, 17 May 2026 15:56:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1779033384; bh=/vouAuRiL4u0L4OBvt2/nK/kw0Ct2vHfD2gvkrC+aaA=; h=Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=hkYUKrx3r8FP5x9qgjbJLhoYa7v56trxKb8axZawQNS0FvBQ5zpBC2+fZffDtI2nv Zwv7Dg4hg2N+LPhV0Vyr9bWOTaneNjBkWIWPudJVbNtAZcbQ9ARDOLnNB6NaeMgsKl TQRvu6U6HMC9gkTAc8+ho/K20Zk5eriWRndGZ/DPkWSHuL08Giz4OoT2rh04lTMnFt 6H/b/M3U0WLfoj7Kri0UwkXH7ayQm3iE9GzRg8LxWxJogj93zsbnBFmg1+GjR//POH PUsioLy1G6e+fNO0MdKLVYAM2e3NdLD7cts96DNwilGj9uOXLLlWM+WkQAyK6vHcnG I22s2G3dZPlpw== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 17:56:20 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: "Krzysztof Kozlowski" , "Greg KH" , "Konstantin Ryabitsev" , "Guenter Roeck" , "Miguel Ojeda" , , , , "Linux Kernel Workflows" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , , To: "Roman Gushchin" From: "Danilo Krummrich" Subject: Re: Stop false review statements References: In-Reply-To: On Sat May 16, 2026 at 9:15 PM CEST, Roman Gushchin wrote: > I agree, it=E2=80=99s sometimes gets tricky when a patchset is sent to mu= ltiple > mailing lists, which policy to apply. I have some improvements in my plan= s, > but it=E2=80=99s not always possible to say how it should be handled. Which improvements do you have in mind? > It=E2=80=99s not fundamentally new: landing changes touching multiple sub= systems is > always harder exactly because maintainers might have different and someti= mes > conflicting views. It can also be relevant in cases where only a single subsystem is touched. For instance, in the case of Rust, the rust-for-linux list serves two purpo= ses -- when it is a Rust subsystem change and when Rust code of any other subsy= stem is touched, i.e. the rust-for-linux list has more of a LKML character and a= lso receives patches for subsystems whose maintainers may not have opted in to sashiko email delivery. That said, I personally don't mind too much, I really like sashiko, which i= s also why I asked for adding the driver-core list. My experience has been th= at it does a very decent job in providing feedback for C code; my feeling is that feedback for Rust code is not quite on par yet, but of course it also highl= y depends on the complexity and scope of the corresponding changes. However, I still have the same concern I raised previously when it comes to email delivery: I think that when sashiko sends feedback to contributors (without Cc'ing the mailing list and all other recipients), it should activ= ely ask the contributor to raise things on the list with all other recipients, reviewers and maintainers before acting on them, such that changes subseque= nt to the first submission on the list are aligned. Can this be added please? Thanks, Danilo