Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/15][pull request] Introduce iXD driver

[Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@intel.com>]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 03:47:13PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 10:33:25AM +0200, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 06:15:26AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:24:15 +0200 Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> > > > I have looked though Sashiko feedback for this version. A lot medium+ comments 
> > > > were things that I have addressed as false-positives in v4, so those are left 
> > > > out, same as many of low-severity subjective issues. Unfortunately, patch 4 does 
> > > > need a fixup (see Re: for the patch itself), but hopefully this does not warrant 
> > > > another PR.
> > > 
> > > There's gazillion patches in the queue. Just fix the bugs and repost.
> > > This "we will follow up" attitude is getting out of hand IMHO.
> > 
> > I was suggesting you could apply the fixup that I have posted under patch 4 
> > ("libie: add control queue support"). If this is not possible, then Tony will do 
> > that and send another revision. (please respond)
> > 
> > Other feedback does not interfere with code working as intended, although 
> > Sashiko's feedback was pretty valuable in getting to the point where I can say 
> > that.
> > 
> > I see that Simon posted only medium+ feedback, I could address it one-by-one 
> > once more, if anyone would read that.
> 
> I realise that in the case of this patchset I forwarded AI-generated review
> which somewhat overlapped with your own efforts: somehow I missed your
> emails and I apologise for that.
> 
> But I wanted to make a general statement regarding commenting on
> AI-generated review:
> 
> I do try (and as we see, sometimes fail), to take into account prior
> discussion on the mailing list as part of my review process.  And I would
> like to think that I am not alone in taking this approach.  So to that
> extent, I think that responses on the ML to concerns flagged by
> AI-generated review have value.

I appretiate the insight, but this suggestion wasn't in any way targeted at you.
I know that you usually filter the feedback.
It is more about whether addressing ALL medium+ feedback in an organized manner 
for this particular version would reassure anyone that the code is correct.