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 6EAB03A3815 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 13:51:25 +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=1774878692; cv=none; b=QvQnk5QyxVR7kTW8hCG/exNIlmB1OPBqbyeZ7wBUAWpPxI3N7lTpkQnhEf2rzgRjHRCR97dqH0FpANf9XsEXXk/tQUgH0sN99Z+xzyLz0nKNkR/miMPoK7pthfIHhGmsAzPH3ty/zrHGRUfcpvDOqw24O6cnHv3fkAkF0KSuTRY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774878692; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RpTMoJ07T2k9URxnFok2qO7MiY1POErpQRQTLJ8TE2E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=s4aBBsv3w26/vu6x7ZjOonLuZY+7L/3PgfVbZgIPnTKZGx2VWpPM59OtSbRjpRRwbfeawks0Xw0l6VfBtYd7hrKKibq4gY44gF6XLPGrf8qO34VbtNFPn7j/BXCN3E9wm6aa2FF0sBaw9ldg8VjKmEnBsLBgpWWXLBs6DEwzc4w= 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=SRgF+Wg9; 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="SRgF+Wg9" Received: from macsyma.thunk.org ([104.135.218.80]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 62UDop2Z011337 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:50:52 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1774878653; bh=Gby/7h3Ke7sH8LKIPI3E1u+BQ5bz9jR7xmEBCvUV8L8=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SRgF+Wg9+16nDyavXgdFhPDNtCprorFdwueAdDiY37LY1O3jvk0n+REoQYk1nginc 9s8sMEC+Fshr9qM1V7utRPLYG96i+pKIf5fnEJR5uetQeX0lGzAktJKKXakxLCCrhA DBD+3fQKD0ASn6T4ejx0uu5ToNuxnhfkt6jO/fXKrfTQPZYdWo3Ncomb3L/PRLGV+E /Tf0OEd22H8NvyQLFzU+MYzmNqltqStSSh7M9ZHhgR2efrHka13i3FPbjNOaIACqWn 1uvezCddlQUc+1qVnxo96UruzQCqSsKrDv9DI/VofjNA0dwO0juZE8xJ55wFu1VA9+ 1CK9JxvghK+Xw== Received: by macsyma.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id E069360046CD; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:50:50 -0400 From: "Theodore Tso" To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Roman Gushchin , linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jassi Brar , Kuninori Morimoto , Geert Uytterhoeven , Magnus Damm Subject: Re: Sashiko review feedback (was Re: [PATCH 2/3] soc: renesas: Add Renesas R-Car MFIS driver) Message-ID: <20260330135050.GD22278@macsyma.local> References: <20260317130638.2804-1-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> <20260317130638.2804-3-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com> <87a4vyynl2.fsf@linux.dev> <87ikalp9b2.fsf@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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 Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > Sure thing. Is there a dedicated mailing-list or better email address I > > > can add? > > > > Not yet, but I think of creating one. > > Until that exists, shall I use your email to add Reported-by tags? In > another of my series, Sashiko found valid issues which already existed > before my series. A tag would be proper, I'd think? I was thinking about proposing some tagging convention such as: Suggested-by: Sashiko:Gemini 3.1 Pro or Reviewed-by: Sashiko:Gemini 3.1 Pro to Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst. Alas, neither is perfect. Suggested-by: is generlly used when someone inspires a particular commit. This might apply if Sashiko found a problem as an incidental finding, which we then fixed in a subsequent commit. An example of this might be[1], or in the case which you suggested above. But what if we just fixed one of the issues raised by Sashiko in an earlier version of the commit. In that case, Suggested-by: doesn't seem to be a perfect fit. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260327063330.1312426-1-tytso@mit.edu/ Reviewed-by: is generally only applicable once *all* of the issues identified by the reviewer has been resolved, and it's not clear this is applicable if not all of the issues rasied by Sashiko were resolved. In some cases, these might be false positives, but in the case of a human reviewer, the human reviewer agrees before saying, "You can add Reviewed-by: ..." to the commit. Unfortunately, it will probably be a while before LLM's have that kind of agency / consciousness. :-) What do folks think? How should we codify a way of giving Sashiko credit for issues that it has raised? (Assuming we should, but hopefully that's not controversial.) - Ted