Sashiko patch review for live-patching?

Sashiko patch review for live-patching?

[Joe Lawrence]

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.

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.

--
Joe

Re: Sashiko patch review for live-patching?

[Song Liu]

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.

> 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.

Thanks,
Song

Re: Sashiko patch review for live-patching?

[Marcos Paulo de Souza]

On Wed, 2026-05-13 at 12:13 -0400, Joe Lawrence 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.
> 
> 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.

We can start with reply_to_author for some time before opting for
reply_all. At least in my last patches, it was quite good and helpful.

> 
> --
> Joe
> 

Re: Sashiko patch review for live-patching?

[Josh Poimboeuf]

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.

-- 
Josh

Re: Sashiko patch review for live-patching?

[Miroslav Benes]

[-- 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

Re: Sashiko patch review for live-patching?

[Petr Mladek]

On Wed 2026-05-13 12:47:13, 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.

I agree. And it might even motivate us to update the subsystem
specific review prompts so that the review gets improved over time.

Best Regards,
Petr