Re: [PATCH] squashfs: avoid thundering-herd cache wakeups

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:01:30 +0100 Phillip Lougher <phillip@squashfs.org.uk> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi Usama,
> 
> Sashiko (the new patch reviewing AI) failed to apply and review your patch.
> 
> See https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260724190556.1950693-1-usama.arif%40linux.dev
> 
> I have been dealing with this issue all week because Sashiko also rejected my
> patch sent this week.
> 
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260805175900.600140-1-phillip%40squashfs.org.uk
> 
> After quite a bit of investigation, it appears the problem is Sashiko is applying
> the patches against the squashfs-next-git URL listed in the MAINTAINERS file.
> 
> Unfortunately that squashfs-next.git tree is unused and twelve years out of date
> (last updated 2014).
> 
> See
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/267938f6-8212-4ddc-9055-452f9d166010@squashfs.org.uk/
> 
> and
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/anUi3bkwfM8teo_R@debarbos-thinkpadt14gen5.rmtusma.csb/
> 
> 
> But as it stands your patch and mine are going nowhere because Andrew won't
> pull any patch that has not passed Sashiko.
> 
> See
> 
> https://lwn.net/Articles/1064830/

Geeze, that's very overstated.

If Sashiko can't review a thing then that's annoying because sometimes
it finds bugs.  If it does review a thing and claims to find
significant issues then I want to see the developer or maintainer
explain why things are OK.

If you the maintainer want the patchset merged in this situation then I
have no problem with that.

> 
> I'm going to resend my patch with a base-commit: tag to see if it makes
> a difference to Sashiko.

That would be interesting.