From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (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 6CBB430C618; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 04:01:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785211286; cv=none; b=rX5vcqguhszM+3RQCPPT//Vzc5igCCKLXZ9ggFx+6YJ+NGUNaSh9UBbdszStN7+h46+fRC9oeGgVK4UJlw2kMWKvS7Mf/GHzJmuQFKkc57pmErcNv+9PaiaoqUE3Q9Lf3HzOCWqmiwxBDFqXpxuRzLlNKohf69lK1na5s3AN5TM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785211286; c=relaxed/simple; bh=faHX5i85zebVWjKFu0EE6bu5qzTsxOvkJ1xSUWLRy2o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lFik8awJ8zfHy44E/0wHY8yxCdvxgK5TDKTQcFxk2g6Ypvqtfp/Kd1cv52Cqn+nFImC3EJxER412HUFT9EU8YL0NTDec7/TyrjzF0JgAdWylQ9Vnbi7TodNLbqaBqM9LgcGz38hCX309DyEdW3ND3WSemZ47tFVCoLCTPp3vgl8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.95.11.211 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lst.de Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id BB55668AFE; Tue, 28 Jul 2026 06:01:20 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 06:01:20 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Carlos Maiolino Cc: Theodore Tso , "Darrick J. Wong" , Christoph Hellwig , Joanne Koong , changfengnan@bytedance.com, Christian Brauner , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: selective Sashiko replies, was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iomap: decouple simple direct I/O reads from iomap_dio_rw Message-ID: <20260728040120.GA19400@lst.de> References: <20260722124931.3159664-1-hch@lst.de> <20260722124931.3159664-3-hch@lst.de> <20260723045347.GA6641@lst.de> <20260723151021.GC7380@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@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: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 02:47:58PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > Whether or not the review goes to a mailing list is up to each > > subsystem to determine. Some people have violently objected to the > > review going to the mailing list, which is why it's optional. > > > > I have asked to have ext4 reviews to be cc'ed to the linux-ext4 > > list[1]. It would be up to the VFS maintainers whether or not we want > > to enable it for linux-fsdevel. > > > > [1] https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/365 > > > > The XFS maintainers can request if patches cc'ed to linux-fs should > > get reviewed and sent back to authors and/or the maintainers and/or > > the linux-fs mailing list. You can either ask the Sashiko devs to > > edit the email_policy.toml file, or you can send a pull request yourself. > > > > IIRC the discussion we had a while back was to keep the reviews emailed > to authors only... > > Now I wonder how feasible would be to have a "linux-xfs-review" list to > send sashiko reviews to, then people opt-in to it? Would it be overkill? The main problem is that reducing the recipient list for replies is incredibly stupid. You can do that for a private offlist conversion on something sensitive, but not by default. If I get a reply, it needs to go everywhere. I have to admit I find the sashiko replies a lot less useful than the web interface, but the important bit is to be consistent.