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 9A280345CDD; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 04:52:48 +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=1774932768; cv=none; b=ij3Lm/3LjD6R09PbYBq2bXIMuCp9FKExwHa2QXPBFm1e5OCzyteqfap/Fl7bFENvKuHZzzqdxGQQv79tyTsnJHGhv+LWxeq7VB9C1VtlwYfKTraBk6ekmRZ6BH8x1fg3VykUus8JZ5Bzw7e/LngXu3YOj98r1gYzpKpegFAXdu4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774932768; c=relaxed/simple; bh=W1sV0gG5y7v5xTcQdkLYhQC8LVNXIot5XhAZDvh9WtE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=elKHdslCQCGOYUmbDgBxj2hH+d3ypXbF1eofzTwZR2+bw2SGVNgUBS7vwlXSBMNQYt5Cvg0kob4uk7xINYM9b5BfmmCexyQ7NjfZwjT9h8m8Up+6wTv5hrRzaNsaN4XkbyNsG/SC+sYNKxmTTX5g3mLewnPalbbbsQWJ071Ac8k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=TYXXjUYG; 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="TYXXjUYG" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C421C19423; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 04:52:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1774932768; bh=W1sV0gG5y7v5xTcQdkLYhQC8LVNXIot5XhAZDvh9WtE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=TYXXjUYGsygiFeTxc15ZdsIJXlkwr86dYuvCilb0aMIDAh38qnVxfos/7uroLY2PU iWYOMO4QDA3gMPxE2alA8RkBjKU8Oo5jJffsQ9Y8izDZ/UlHADM8T7YHPRBS4AZnfb SEEM7AJFtW9Y76p0FPK9IOtBohiB6NkBjXpEbjCJgymtOtS8vlmQjlkC8RjYA4l+IV Qt0l1kNaXWlfLZrcyVKHs5OrJPe9Dt/ziF+OcBeg8MdY9RRH0U/jj2uOWkpPizFeDM LzzrM+mpWPjqrT8WlBtVvGgCoJgBACt9VQ/vmYFICTi16MmCkuR9me4asjESYAsxDw 9BCXgjPOU1KYg== From: SeongJae Park To: Andrew Morton Cc: SeongJae Park , Greg KH , "Liam R. Howlett" , "# 5 . 19 . x" , David Hildenbrand , Jonathan Corbet , Lorenzo Stoakes , Michal Hocko , Mike Rapoport , Shuah Khan , Suren Baghdasaryan , Vlastimil Babka , damon@lists.linux.dev, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Roman Gushchin Subject: Re: (sashiko status) [PATCH 0/2] Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon: warn commit_inputs vs other params race Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 21:52:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20260331045245.67438-1-sj@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20260330142205.e7c7d7b47ec15a634f6eebf4@linux-foundation.org> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:22:05 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 12:32:26 -0700 SeongJae Park wrote: > > > On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 20:05:53 +0200 Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 08:49:16AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > > Forwarding sashiko.dev review status for this thread. > > > > > > > > # review url: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260329153052.46657-1-sj@kernel.org > > > > > > Why are you doing this? If we want to see the review, can't we just go > > > and look at the tool itself? > > > > We can. But it is bit cumbersome to opening web browser and moving my focus to > > there. Reading everything on the mailing tool is easier for some people like > > me. Like some test bots send reports are replying to patches, or we sometimes > > forwarding bugzilla reports to mailing lists in a form of a plain text mail. > > > > Secondly, I have to share my opinions about the reviews, as many times AI > > reviews need human's opinions. There is no good way to do that on the web ui > > of the tool (sashiko) for now, and I think this mail based flow is the best. > > I do agree with Greg that it's all a bit excessive. Thanks for your > your diligence, but perhaps dial it back a bit? It's OK - we're all > trying to figure out how best to utilize this tool. Thank you for your kind words, Andrew. I understand and admit the fact that this looks excessive. > > I view Sashiko as primarily an author tool. Sometimes I call it > checkpatch++. Thank you for sharing your perspective. This is helpful at what you want from the use of the tool, thank you. My view of sashiko was a human reviewer that having very odd characteristic and cannot answer to my feedback for a reason, but still being useful in many cases. Hence I wanted to help the special reviewer be able to communicate with others on the mailing list. And I was thinking anyway that's what sashiko will do, because I saw sending review as mail as one of TODO items for sashiko, from the public announcement, and I onboarded DAMON for that. But apparently not everyone is sharing same view. My understanding of the TODO item in sashiko public announcement may also be biased. Maybe being a subsystem's sole maintainer that looking for a reviewer made such uncautiously biased perspectives. > In a better world, author would be able to sort out > Sashiko issues before ever sending out the patchset. But in this > world, a public send is needed to obtain that review. > > So what we're presently seeing is author development activity which is > unfortunately and inappropriately being conducted on a public list. Makes sense. Now I understand why you and Roman were discussing having a separate mailing list for sharing the reviews via mail as a path forward, and I agree that could be a good option. > > Personally, I pay only a little attention to author's Sashiko activity. > Just enough to see whether I should pay more attention. If author > says "oops, let me redo" then fine, I'll await the next spin. If > author says "that was all nonsense" then fine, time to take a closer > look. Makes sense. I will try to keep sharing necessary information, but for only targetted audiences, with less traffic. Thanks, SJ