From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.tipi-net.de (mail.tipi-net.de [194.13.80.246]) (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 115F22D1303; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 20:24:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775507063; cv=none; b=Bvxmsrbpocis+prz2xaj5GVM/cs8mQAbTKAIQwJd9FIm87VMrmEEZ7CxhDMJJsVH1cl97ypyPIrHIHce4Q343AzuBwn+j32K6M79hOshPyW8tUg0W4urc6H/qrJMNMUKnSb+3r+ogVnk4J5cTMBzbp5aSPjD9BdufZVjBuInnNA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775507063; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kD3qMn/QwOra99S1JShD4jJdRKCWREFKFC0iP6yhfSY=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=Ytao9d/mRWbY31Y1vJ2P3dyV9fSY7hgw2bpRFkEysdxS3jwE/IPc1dmnw0Iu795G4iRJ13Yf+5h32Nfuo1iAefmfaWoyjF+0nxNhbM+JHM67A4Bbg0E6ZvQ4FaSoKPhH8VbjTkeXPLxbrsOcsP3kCjwQ4f3uCYa3jvNQiQ+XmPI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b=PuXdArmy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.13.80.246 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tipi-net.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tipi-net.de header.i=@tipi-net.de header.b="PuXdArmy" Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 9FCBAA26FD; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 22:24:14 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tipi-net.de; s=dkim; t=1775507056; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=/Mg0y47EK3uAoeIaCfzd7gz2Sros7bHOlKo7jG+JGdM=; b=PuXdArmynN1L+WpiPkX5NRT04lKuj2cPUJxDUHfkHq1zZLyAAGnHPAObjvJ55h7+EJzXvU 62TDxA0e5I8Dl4uj/G5ToZKUz1/uVS31hummP9QpiDKJGPARD0WHZMdd6P+fhfDcRJiDPY GY4OsGVSPtf/WODEA6s+VzM86NyyTYbu23YoFA+0V2TZ8GFnQ4Q4uoa5URA6Ufi1yZpvhk BXbbcxujidUD3TKjP4WPZ3flOtjYNvwl3EbaapU7y1mVbkUUn+fAL6XaFoBzvA8gQthEry NLI1AXQl7VXillu6QSbTT2uyMyQFmFdW9MbdmgX8j4xgGog9NxW/XXe0lTweNA== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 22:24:14 +0200 From: Nicolai Buchwitz To: Fernando Fernandez Mancera Cc: "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , netdev@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mbloch@nvidia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: document AI-assisted review tooling In-Reply-To: <345722f0-21b1-4970-8c45-ef85edf9d45b@suse.de> References: <20260406-nb-docs-ai-review-v1-1-b58943762ca9@tipi-net.de> <345722f0-21b1-4970-8c45-ef85edf9d45b@suse.de> Message-ID: <56c5bdfe2e37738e47b3b4d22e21697c@tipi-net.de> X-Sender: nb@tipi-net.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 On 6.4.2026 21:58, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: > [...] > > Hi Nicolai, > maybe I am missing something but [2] isn't from sashiko.dev but from > netdev AI CI instead. See: > https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-review.html?id=0b114a22-9aab-4265-8bfc-ea1b5bca5514 You're right, I mixed up the two systems - the example I linked was from the netdev AI bot, not Sashiko. My mistake on the link. I stumbled over Sashiko when I noticed the name appearing more often in other reviews and then found Jonathan's LWN article about it [1]. Both tools are actively reviewing patches on the list today. I think it makes sense to document both rather than just one: The netdev AI bot at netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev Sashiko at sashiko.dev, which posts reviews publicly on its website Both use the same review prompts by Chris Mason [2], so there is common ground - though results will vary between them due to the different AI models (Claude Opus for netdev-ai, Gemini for Sashiko) on top of the usual AI uncertainty. I think it would be useful to document that AI reviews are happening but mixing AI bots might confuse people. Agreed, I'll rework the patch to distinguish the two systems once the discussion has been settled. > > The documentation mentioned for running the AI locally is correctly > related to netdev AI bot. > > I think it would be useful to document that AI reviews are happening > but mixing AI bots might confuse people. > >> Check for findings on your submissions and address >> +valid ones before a maintainer has to relay the same questions. >> + > > I wonder what would be the consequences for this. If less experienced > submitters are expected to address issues pointed out by AI bots they > might work on something that isn't valid. AFAIU, the AI output is only > forwarded to the submitter after a maintainer reviewed it and believes > it makes sense. Fair point. The wording should make clear that the local tooling is an optional aid, not an obligation. I'll soften the language around addressing findings. Would appreciate input on how much detail is appropriate here - should the doc just acknowledge that AI review exists and point to the tooling, or go into more detail about the workflow? [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/1063292/ [2] https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/blob/main/kernel/subsystem/networking.md > > Thanks, > Fernando. > >> +You can also run AI reviews locally before submitting. Instructions >> +and tooling are available at: >> + >> + https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html >> + >> Testimonials / feedback >> ----------------------- >> Thanks for your input Nicolai