From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 9BB04391831 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 13:14:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776086053; cv=none; b=TwYJbnR9XrznU6iSNnoshzEEehXL7RqLIXhBM8wM4vlmQnSO/y+AgsG4UyFdf9hDXiHbm7Boi8FhGexr8XwIJjmNYBKKAQhLaRLy07UyVxBq+UOu7vhxIro7xqHP8yPEjuRQEBPnR973vbkwfMQFAyTxb0AkZfkKv+P4JEsEFr4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776086053; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2AuBWIFvC7/nquJkHpvRixm9ibvOCSk5O0qQhIFfOcQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=hsxS7OwnI6HYOizl2Lbl6xG0GmltI/BQxVvJhB84gW7dMeybBIwdFKzqeQa1zGbSy2glhoQ0sJo8L/OhG5MxRSXBWU85qeWeGGW/wX+dmEU4BfRRGAI/iNr970udb7WFzOryphyWJLrgqIpxneGJq+URAw4OpatnWcSQfKi5eiU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b=KHnK4LK1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=18.9.28.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mit.edu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mit.edu header.i=@mit.edu header.b="KHnK4LK1" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org (pool-173-48-113-10.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.48.113.10]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 63DDDj5b029103 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Apr 2026 09:13:46 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1776086029; bh=Yumz4VVI2CvZaQiNYD8g1kkjxRQ41MO3HgLPa2OvHuE=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KHnK4LK1T+bzkuou4AsvWt9CpkFtM1jkjdo0jSsBgdbD5xAnoIgGO5DrXRD064xEZ GKnOGRUH0ukUsNo3lxG3kTAa/p0CPFQPSkOHlWyB8Rjo051v5i6DfI3Y4yNPaUAKNo skqUkyqZmGjibkZEMzwLjSx9sOdqcSa+b3xpPVcCWfCsFtQjzDhEwUF7ZLytv0GguR c7T7D5t+DzY2exVF889bhRH7pDASdKNjo6Jg/pa+wP1CPeuJYIICBvpHcUt3pEGesN m5MFLKwU/z7KCoK/AsDNofPtLd03bsVVXX7TEbIGSMtvRCMFsU9wI+VIKUXGR7vFI/ Jy/aWHPpT3ZvA== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id D1F3E62DBF45; Mon, 13 Apr 2026 09:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 09:12:44 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Li Chen Cc: Zhang Yi , Andreas Dilger , Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , linux-ext4 , linux-trace-kernel , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [RFC v4 0/7] ext4: fast commit: snapshot inode state for FC log Message-ID: <20260413131244.GB20496@macsyma-wired.lan> References: <20260120112538.132774-1-me@linux.beauty> <20260410011843.GD99725@macsyma-wired.lan> <19d86eec635.f7072461135455.4960134919814592320@linux.beauty> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19d86eec635.f7072461135455.4960134919814592320@linux.beauty> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 09:01:28PM +0800, Li Chen wrote: > Absolutely! It's great to learn about the Sashiko development site. > I will address the real issues in the next version. Note that Sashiko will sometimes report a pre-existing issue as if it were a problem with the commit. If that happens, feel free to ignore its complaint; what I consider best practice is to either (a) fix it in the a subsequent patch or patch series, or (b) leave a TODO in the code. I've asked the Sashiko folks to add way for URI's for each issue that are identified by Sashiko, so we can put a URL in the TODO comment for someone who wants to fix it later, and to make it easier for Sashiko to identified pre-existing issues so it doesn't comment on the same issue across multiple commit reviews (and perhaps save on the some LLM token budget :-). In the next few days, for patches sent to linux-ext4, Sashiko will start e-mailing its reviews to the patch submitter and to me as the maintainer. Once we can reduce the false positive rate, I'll ask that the reviews be cc'ed to the linux-ext4 mailing list. But it seems good enough that to send e-mails to the patch submitter and the maintainer --- but that's a decision that each subsystem maintainer will be making on their own. Cheers, - Ted