Re: Sashiko patch review for live-patching?

[Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1703 bytes --]

On Wed, 13 May 2026, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 10:17:51AM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> > 
> > On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 9:13 AM Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello live-patching maintainers,
> > >
> > > I've noticed several references to the Sashiko (https://sashiko.dev/)
> > > kernel review bot on this list and was wondering if there is interest in
> > > adding live-patching to the mailing lists Sashiko tracks.
> > 
> > I think it is a great idea. AFAICT, these bots add a lot of values in the
> > code reviews.
> 
> +1
> 
> > > Integration appears straightforward: we can submit an MR to add our
> > > entry to sashiko-k8s.yaml and customize the bot's email behavior in
> > > email_policy.toml.
> > >
> > > Full Sashiko Maintainer documentation is available here:
> > > https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/blob/main/MAINTAINERS_GUIDE.md
> > >
> > > Personally, I would vote to set reply_to_author.  I don't have a strong
> > > opinion on the other custom options, provided that the CC list is opt-in
> > > rather than simply mirrored from the MAINTAINERS::LIVE PATCHING file.
> > > Either way, I've found the Sashiko web interface very helpful in patch
> > > review.
> > 
> > Given the relatively low volume of patches to the livepatch mail list, I
> > think we can use reply_all. But if folks prefer reply_to_author instead,
> > we sure can use the cc list.
> 
> I would vote reply_all.  The signal/noise ratio isn't perfect, but it's
> high enough to be useful in many cases.  That way the
> maintainers/reviewers are aware of any potential issues, and it avoids
> duplicating review work and fragmenting conversations.

+1

Miroslav