From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (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 7D1863B895D; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 17:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785259714; cv=none; b=EmiD4lZfUYZRaCblDKZHykkCBosPMB6H+ED/RWPJ4ehB4Z8l4J5lCEyFj6gOVb6eWk0SW5DUGd/70WYJ50UH/N+aGAF1yZu36Ia9hHx2DiQcN7htVT/nu22z/HMmGdZwg2u4yRuAn0umXf8fgqB1RY548Ul4cbmIVSZEBxNVeKY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785259714; c=relaxed/simple; bh=O4rOuNLRTmbkAP1CyY/AA/19geo/K95YKftQQyUZLhg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qIOOEYpmTmt02E+vasgThLFJO9Ui33NWS2vC1p5nWdYMxgtOx1Xezo0kmehuFB/Ic+ODFC+EVgVF9Xd7ggHaOIApsjGj8ghnqNisMthtoSOZhkyyAdJPIGGDap7te4lKEB7SfReqQ3iHJtYv9EyTmqYIsN5hHne3oU6YgdjpP+k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=fWE0KFzy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="fWE0KFzy" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 5CB36408BD DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1785259706; bh=F0D1oVBp1mCNIFF0QrFoBIyEJH9M0+dob1CyNPP+u+c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=fWE0KFzyxHSbSdvp+z+qb7fSOnT2pf7zwiaGMYKHRyO46fg1W0F+kCtlksrGBjXeF JnNVoqSFiNKbkAcP3/lVOY3TgJ9wou2YWoVhkmO4q9OwDNHqYeJW+sAekhg+ragUf9 3yDcTUKaS7xpyr0j9G30CTmpPRHK1MSYUf/1IwI+vear/HX0weMtBWbBkP0DpTJc7H mLgWEQgSiTxQYs+91NUS3fJ18Yq5u1tVff2SSAlQz3UVcZ3WBnAbrCMMMniOtXOGUN pIE8GTiMUJsUGyHeIZPZhKZE0Luhdbm7kjK264V46xVvfkaPJZpZKKyY/sA2r32s4y YO0BEWqM+8OHQ== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CB36408BD; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 17:28:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Theodore Tso , Jakub Kicinski Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Carlos Maiolino , "Darrick J. Wong" , Joanne Koong , changfengnan@bytedance.com, Christian Brauner , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: selective Sashiko replies, was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iomap: decouple simple direct I/O reads from iomap_dio_rw In-Reply-To: References: <20260722124931.3159664-1-hch@lst.de> <20260722124931.3159664-3-hch@lst.de> <20260723045347.GA6641@lst.de> <20260723151021.GC7380@frogsfrogsfrogs> <20260728040120.GA19400@lst.de> <20260728072756.7ddc9fdd@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:28:25 -0600 Message-ID: <87h5ljf2h2.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain "Theodore Tso" 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