Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko?

["Theodore Tso" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 09:59:57AM -0500, Jacopo Mondi wrote:
> Far-fetched review comments, very convincing word salads mixed with
> valuable findings have often been escalated by authors to maintainers
> to have them distil the good from the bad.

That hasn't been my experience with ext4.  As far as signal to noise,
the main issue is one where pre-existing issues are flagged in
multiple patches in the patch series.  However, (a) Romain knows about
this, and a fix is in the works, and (b) it's flagged as a
pre-existing issue --- and we tell newcomers that they are free to
disgard pre-existing issues, but if they do want to fix it, in most
cases do it as a separate patch (or in a separate patch series) and to
avoid folding it into the current patch --- especially if the fix is
non-trivial.

> All discussions around AI inevitably ends being about principles and
> good vs bad. I'm surprised Linus and Ted had to weight in to re-state
> the "we're not against AI!" principle while I would like to discuss
> signal-to-noise metrics instead.

If it makes sense for a subsystem to move reviews to a separate list,
by all means, that should be up to the subsystem maintainers.  There
has been quite a lot of discussion about how we should accomodate
people who object to AI by dumping more work on maintainers, and
that's the part that I object to.

One of the things that really excites me about Shashiko is that it
reduces my workload.  Whereas the false positives from Syxbot and
oss-fuzz have caused me more work, not less, and has had significantly
more noise than Shahiko.  (I've started outright ignoring oss-fuzz
reports as a result, and the "respond within NN days or we will make
our report public" has caused me to respond, "and this will say more
bad things about oss-fuzz than my software"....)

Cheers,

							- Ted