selective Sashiko replies, was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iomap: decouple simple direct I/O reads from iomap_dio_rw

selective Sashiko replies, was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iomap: decouple simple direct I/O reads from iomap_dio_rw

[Christoph Hellwig]

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.

Re: selective Sashiko replies, was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iomap: decouple simple direct I/O reads from iomap_dio_rw

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 06:01:20 +0200 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 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.

+1, maybe perhaps someone wants the off-list option, dunno. 
But trimming the CC list of the on-list reply is a really weird idea.
Submissions often CC multiple vger lists, and the bot only replies to one.

Re: selective Sashiko replies, was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iomap: decouple simple direct I/O reads from iomap_dio_rw

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 07:27:56AM -0500, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 
> +1, maybe perhaps someone wants the off-list option, dunno. 
> But trimming the CC list of the on-list reply is a really weird idea.
> Submissions often CC multiple vger lists, and the bot only replies to one.

It's not (necessarily) "just one" mailing list.

For better or for worse, there are people who have claimed that being
exposed to LLM reviews would "deman their humanity".  So the Sashiko
maintainers have made it completely up to each subsystem whether (a)
Sashiko should review the patch aat all or (b) whether the review
should be sent via e-mail, or just left on sashiko.dev web site.

If it is sent via e-mail, then who it should be sent to can be
configured to send it to the patch author (or not), or what e-mail
addresses should be sent if the patch is qualified as relevant for a
particular subsystem.  This could just be the maintainer(s), or to the
subsystem mailing list, etc.  If a patch is relevant to (say) both the
SCSI subsystem and the s390 subsystem, then it will be sent to both
subsystem mailing lists.  So it's not that the bot only replies to one
list, but only to those lists that the subsystem maintainers have
authorized.

At some level, the Sashiko developers effectively have tossed the hot
potato policy decision to the subsystem maintainers.  Given the
megathead on the ksummit mailing lsit, I can't really blame Roman for
choosing to do this ---- although I'll note the Intel zero-day bot
folks chose differently; I guess automated benchmarks aren't perceived
to demean the humanity of developers as much as LLM reviews, and so
aren't as controversial.

Cheers,

						- Ted

Re: selective Sashiko replies, was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iomap: decouple simple direct I/O reads from iomap_dio_rw

[Jonathan Corbet]

"Theodore Tso" <tytso@mit.edu> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 07:27:56AM -0500, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> 
>> +1, maybe perhaps someone wants the off-list option, dunno. 
>> But trimming the CC list of the on-list reply is a really weird idea.
>> Submissions often CC multiple vger lists, and the bot only replies to one.
>
> It's not (necessarily) "just one" mailing list.
>
> For better or for worse, there are people who have claimed that being
> exposed to LLM reviews would "deman their humanity".

Can I offer a slightly different perspective here?  I am not one of the
people who has said such things about LLM reviews, but I perhaps
understand at least part of where they are coming from.  It's not "being
exposed" to reviews that is demeaning, it is being forced to justify
one's work to a machine.

I can see how that might feel an awful lot like convincing the
customer-service bot that yes, you *have* tried rebooting your router
and you should be connected to a human without having to do it again.
*That* can be demeaning.

The netdev folks are currently setting up this policy:

	Patch authors are expected to proactively look into the
        AI-generated reviews and handle such feedback as any other kind
        of review: either debate it or address it. In both cases a reply
        on the mailing list is expected.
        (https://lore.kernel.org/all/83360de7addb13a3b5f4d5e722148f248fdb2ae0.1784884817.git.pabeni@redhat.com/)

Without taking a position on whether this view is correct, I can
certainly see why some people would balk at the idea of being forced to
"debate" a machine before having their work considered.

jon

Re: selective Sashiko replies, was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] iomap: decouple simple direct I/O reads from iomap_dio_rw

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:28:25 -0600 Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 07:27:56AM -0500, Jakub Kicinski wrote:  
> >> 
> >> +1, maybe perhaps someone wants the off-list option, dunno. 
> >> But trimming the CC list of the on-list reply is a really weird idea.
> >> Submissions often CC multiple vger lists, and the bot only replies to one.  
> >
> > It's not (necessarily) "just one" mailing list.
> >
> > For better or for worse, there are people who have claimed that being
> > exposed to LLM reviews would "deman their humanity".  
> 
> Can I offer a slightly different perspective here?  I am not one of the
> people who has said such things about LLM reviews, but I perhaps
> understand at least part of where they are coming from.  It's not "being
> exposed" to reviews that is demeaning, it is being forced to justify
> one's work to a machine.

FWIW I think that's an entirely reasonable concern, and some people do
indeed get irritated having to fight the AI slop reviews.

I thought the complaint was about the cases where the author is notified
about the review, and so is at least one ML. But the CC list is cut
down, so that a human reviewer doesn't see the AI output. They find 
the same issue as the AI. And then the author responds with "AI already
told me: $lore-link". Which is really maximizing everyone's misery.