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 4EF793B0ACD for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:31:24 +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=1784136687; cv=none; b=itE4/igzvERwBhel6up0bqE7mD8U7BfV+DaqIxFvbqrKv43Jehj++OwjhfaGXGsbhPhWty857WilTZnMxTGanauqx+bGsRB/zc5+2xVLqwQwIf4ilzPBg27v5cxMtD5XF1IjSpSWlDIgHtI7NdMg+YItzKZUI7zb4Yr14BcdhCM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784136687; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6meeYdmCgdTHX7X3S358U2yiiJC/++sbxSx8h8Vqqfo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=AjxH/Sbd06wAPbTLSKoXzPKhCUcJTEaYCkYSQCp99shuCDj/nPqXN0Mf9/jnL9W3RuOtUadlTSF60eynOJKIHTUzwDNCHW2lLbketEC0KQa/Qr/LbOQkpa3apGtrq7CY3NnPO+amHSJum6a45eh+G4TL/MXdXmaMVyt1mL659II= 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=AjByWrbC; 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="AjByWrbC" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org ([151.240.45.27]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 66FHV1Iq032122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:31:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1784136670; bh=W5xg98Db6keVKh5RY1acYpY4A9glKmN9ONSgd5mdPDc=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=AjByWrbCw3SyUNcaatcncbvnq1+UI7AZHUknDOp+GCukABdEwoKVEJWB95twdqxuh crp96gTF/RHfRKXuFx85TMmT0ZyVJOTV3Dt+pxS0Ix8dREPyhmUcQNLgxEuemQe7uA +1QmNUhMvhiLfNZ3AM6iNqV9dWQ8kjUi2ZFFyrZc0UKTwoVKbhkJRFRrUwQvGwetDG ppSYdgKUF25R+Y+6pmMQDWWp3ErSW+Fz+lrWnqmqcVKgZ9o+OKYN5tdXIohLoeHjyx e4XIqAaxXm1tbZjjf+v1+bKb0lqE+jFyzYioHyiY7oZFEKxXDVzrN4dxStP5UV1IJg 1ma9/N85ZRdng== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 0EB1EA2F5F6; Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:31:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:31:00 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Jacopo Mondi Cc: Roman Gushchin , Laurent Pinchart , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Derek Barbosa , Matthieu Baerts , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Jason Gunthorpe , Steven Rostedt , users@kernel.org, Linux Media Mailing List , Stephen Finucane Subject: Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko? Message-ID: References: <20260715005909.GF1656185@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <4928C919-7999-4E76-ADCB-F8643FED105B@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-media@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: 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