From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail3-164.sinamail.sina.com.cn (mail3-164.sinamail.sina.com.cn [202.108.3.164]) (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 DB0CC29D264 for ; Sat, 16 May 2026 22:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.108.3.164 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778969104; cv=none; b=ROAT4kPdEbqN3hx4u9EJvdpwvHu3cvq6sev8JRZICHPJzyPn77YkAbkiiKtTWaG8XzQk+OdAygDhp/EdaGKtLycRfcPEc3Wh+zJsoSIn0NMX3N4FemP2A+VFIdsuSgkd4L5kbBSviElRlzYJUMKzQRYeMO1oopCMYi2cyHKo6QQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778969104; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zYIl+qz7G2t/DzlRbO/QBttRJX1uUt1lVnONNZPF9HQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XKHHdmERCX1QQOIApSHyBRJHyL3QCmSTmlW0er/QU5ygBX3JPwNiMDMNx1riu4OFC8VdmndP+08hGmLo6Ohb78Xg2GlT/Cfww0vI5rfEmKCar0YwuK/wEeUOGzAdEBJKVrFLGN2nN7HSqfwUeipWvtsk6qzbOO+g2RkOGQ6deHc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sina.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sina.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sina.com header.i=@sina.com header.b=zUb+V4C0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.108.3.164 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sina.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sina.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sina.com header.i=@sina.com header.b="zUb+V4C0" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sina.com; s=201208; t=1778969101; bh=Jy9ahS+BHqG75wogZN5Y6lXx4PExc2rGGex7c/TQ2Zs=; h=From:Subject:Date:Message-ID; b=zUb+V4C0UNKj/SRwMqY5Y5w3peKkv500hScPLXnp4NurNf7Msx0AlpqLjtkH9pFZX jty7NAZtJOJ8Z0s4eXSJh9c9OiFw40DjYirflnyTKwDYUUMnhbQzitGgzIMPL6Qee9 poqiBw13aMWxEDRCBVU/+T/UczrTR9iuvJCdaYEA= X-SMAIL-HELO: localhost.localdomain Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain)([114.249.62.144]) by sina.com (10.54.253.32) with ESMTP id 6A08EA0000005A8C; Sat, 17 May 2026 06:04:49 +0800 (CST) X-Sender: hdanton@sina.com X-Auth-ID: hdanton@sina.com Authentication-Results: sina.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=hdanton@sina.com; dkim=none header.i=none; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hdanton@sina.com X-SMAIL-MID: 8816344456600 X-SMAIL-UIID: D7E886744C4B498CA0360549BEC3498D-20260517-060449-1 From: Hillf Danton To: Theodore Tso Cc: Roman Gushchin , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Konstantin Ryabitsev , Guenter Roeck , sashiko-bot@kernel.org, sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Stop false review statements Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 06:04:36 +0800 Message-ID: <20260516220439.738-1-hdanton@sina.com> In-Reply-To: <20260516204143.GB26730@macsyma-wired.lan> References: 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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Sat, 16 May 2026 16:41:43 -0400 Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 12:15:12PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > The trouble is that subsystem is mailing list, thus I still got all of > > > them via b4, which is used to get the discussion. > > > > > > Send them only to the maintainer, for example. Or maintainer + authors. > > > > > > Basically the same as LKP is doing. > > > > There are subsystems which want email reviews to be sent to the subsystem > > mailing list. In fact, all currently configured email policies came from maintainers, > > I don’t push anything based on my own preferences. > > In the case of ext4, we have a weekly video conference of the core > developers, and last week I asked the ext4 core developers whether we > should start cc'ing the linux-ext4 list. When I first asked Roman to > send the reviews to the me as the reviewer and the patch author, I > didn't want to cc the list in the case people would find annoying. > > The discussion in our video chat was that the quality of the reviews > was quite good, and the only feedback from the ext4 developers was (a) > pre-existing problems that were unrelated the patch series, (b) > sometimes the problems that was pointed out are ones that we don't > care about (for example, there was a recent comment about readahead > detection being racy, and that was not ext4-specific, and readahead is > a hint and if two processes are reading the file at the same > time.... oh cares how the system handles the hueristic of something > which is a hint anyway), and (c) while Shashiko is good at pointing > out problems, its suggestted solutions aren't as good. > > But that's OK, on the whole, the Sashiko is finding problems that > humans very familiar with code base had missed. Feel free to add why. In over 80% or just a couple cases a week? > And so it's certainly better than most human reviewers. > Only ext4 specific? In the past 6 months? > Based on that, the consensus of the ext4 core developers that it would > be better to make sure that the linux-ext4 list should be cc'ed. So > that's a decision that didn't come from me as the ext4 maintainer, but > after consulting with core ext4 developers and reviewers. > > > I agree, it’s sometimes gets tricky when a patchset is sent to > > multiple mailing lists, which policy to apply. > > What I would suggest is that if we have a patch which is cc'ed to say, > linux-xfs, linux-ext4, and linux-fsdevel, as well as a dozen > developers suggested by get_maintainer.pl, and only the ext4 list has > requested the reviews, then only send it to the ext4 maintainer, the > ext4 mailing list, and the patch author. The Sashiko review doesn't > need to be cc'ed to the other lists, or the dozen or so other > maintainers. > > Cheers, > > - Ted >