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 E43B72D9EFF; Wed, 1 Apr 2026 14:35:50 +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=1775054151; cv=none; b=lv8SOqWCMhD1HgYCwDzpyP/9AuTqMthranTkV8p0YZDQAsCzI3yTy6LUyi+FUEp0zRpVUBTdyi908xtkKRKw5NkpHL6FuWYIMvDG2pVSmovkm1PkqiLPOokWcmRkhvwbdm6WwGs8pto5l+dMM67BIagrpwn6ELPH3AWPs6SgbMw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775054151; c=relaxed/simple; bh=m9MQv/+xHVnv9KxDvHolpXGTatHUTDpM3/XUeo/oduY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qyYQ6mOA0N5kHtn1KM/PcLrzd28WwFc9/GK+5Cq+pZqT6BZc8YAhhFIwexPXeLH45bNfa7fwPiWcoIpZkHsE7sk0GM5e7h104OD9enwt7N48+MhW+OVuuY14gKCagQ6tEaZ/05PSeYQT30GwDJiTSLoxX4+gh3K088sSA9TLrD4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=m4qc+wXn; 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="m4qc+wXn" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57B2AC4CEF7; Wed, 1 Apr 2026 14:35:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1775054150; bh=m9MQv/+xHVnv9KxDvHolpXGTatHUTDpM3/XUeo/oduY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=m4qc+wXn3h7fwNgToxtrjwTYV6j0qV6r7y08NT4QcVgt/m6wtl7N/56Gfxtv78CT2 6JyQKJQ6EI/heIh8zVlUSdXqxPcYa5ZtZ6Kl6vtBmHiJPM6WGjZxeh+7aUPP2wp+p3 4cG5v4MvTGDpdUgVIGR9TO68OIAIeaJv25otjr/5rZpCvuGzfdJPS3Z2pPN83URZ3i /SFVdstzWay9bkh4W3JTToHewqwnQQenCfvXsG5wlEbZK7ynq5ZSDGt9JJJu3kSQCX JZg6aOowE0EN5ctBBkNGqD8+K8YKJQk430CGmJOe0EHVkJHzXlPej7D51rl8X0ZB2Z zio/Fl1wFkqnw== Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2026 10:35:49 -0400 From: Konstantin Ryabitsev To: Luka Gejak Cc: Greg KH , omer.e.idrissi@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] rtw_sdio_if1_init cleanup and small logic tweak Message-ID: <20260401-icy-fine-flamingo-d406ee@lemur> References: <2026040119-smasher-oozy-8d41@gregkh> <5252F4DA-4FB2-4217-B13E-4B6AF912220B@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5252F4DA-4FB2-4217-B13E-4B6AF912220B@linux.dev> On Wed, Apr 01, 2026 at 11:46:59AM +0200, Luka Gejak wrote: > You're right, I used a tool to help format the response because > English is not my native language and I wanted the review to be clear. > I see now that it made the response look like a bot report and I > apologize for that. I'll stick to writing reviews manually going > forward. However the technical issues I pointed out (like the inverted > _SUCCESS/_FAIL logic in the staging headers and the uninitialized > pnetdev pointer) are real regressions I found while auditing the code > on my local tree. I'll make sure future feedback is direct and clearly > identified if I use any tooling. If you want to try something out, there is a new feature in b4 that allows integrating agent reviews in your response in a format that would be better received by kernel developers: https://b4.docs.kernel.org/en/latest/reviewer/getting-started.html HOWEVER, it does not remove the need to verify what the agent wrote -- LLMs are *routinely* wrong. Review and include only those comments that you have verified and are sure about -- never anything that "looks valid," because you are likely to just waste everyone's time. If you aren't absolutely sure that the agent's findings are correct, do not include them, no matter the temptation. Best regards, -- KR