Re: selective Sashiko replies, was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iomap: decouple simple direct I/O reads from iomap_dio_rw

[Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>]

"Theodore Tso" <tytso@mit.edu> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 07:27:56AM -0500, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> 
>> +1, maybe perhaps someone wants the off-list option, dunno. 
>> But trimming the CC list of the on-list reply is a really weird idea.
>> Submissions often CC multiple vger lists, and the bot only replies to one.
>
> It's not (necessarily) "just one" mailing list.
>
> For better or for worse, there are people who have claimed that being
> exposed to LLM reviews would "deman their humanity".

Can I offer a slightly different perspective here?  I am not one of the
people who has said such things about LLM reviews, but I perhaps
understand at least part of where they are coming from.  It's not "being
exposed" to reviews that is demeaning, it is being forced to justify
one's work to a machine.

I can see how that might feel an awful lot like convincing the
customer-service bot that yes, you *have* tried rebooting your router
and you should be connected to a human without having to do it again.
*That* can be demeaning.

The netdev folks are currently setting up this policy:

	Patch authors are expected to proactively look into the
        AI-generated reviews and handle such feedback as any other kind
        of review: either debate it or address it. In both cases a reply
        on the mailing list is expected.
        (https://lore.kernel.org/all/83360de7addb13a3b5f4d5e722148f248fdb2ae0.1784884817.git.pabeni@redhat.com/)

Without taking a position on whether this view is correct, I can
certainly see why some people would balk at the idea of being forced to
"debate" a machine before having their work considered.

jon