From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: sashiko-bot@kernel.org, sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev,
sashiko@lists.linux.dev,
Linux Kernel Workflows <workflows@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
kfree@google.com
Subject: Re: Stop false review statements
Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 14:16:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <221cc52e-9918-43ea-b196-622a8cc6db05@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fcc4b719-2696-4f31-bac4-6c07f8ddec47@roeck-us.net>
On 16/05/2026 14:11, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> What the hell is that:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260515190707.033BDC2BCB0@smtp.kernel.org/
>>
>> As a bot you CANNOT MAKE a Reviewer's statement of oversight. You are
>> not a damn human do be able to make such statement. You are a bot, a tool.
>>
>
> Where exactly do the rules say that ? I seem to miss that.
>
> There is a policy document about _contributions_ made by AI, but I don't
> see the one that says that AI agents must not provide Reviewed-by: tags.
Quotes from the existing policy:
1. "By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:"
Tool cannot use first person "I". Tool cannot "state that".
2. "A Reviewed-by tag is *a statement of opinion* that the patch is an
appropriate modification of the kernel without any remaining serious"
Tool cannot make a statement of opinion.
3. "Any interested reviewer (who has done the work) can offer a
Reviewed-by".
Tool is not a reviewer as a person, thus above does not grant the tool
permission to offer a tag.
>
>> Stop faking tags.
>>
>> And really, considering how many false positives Sashiko produces, how
>> poor review comments it gives, how many misleading comments, it's
>> unacceptable to me to consider that a review.
>>
>> Amount of useless noise Sashiko produces already changed my mind how
>> useful that tool is.
>
> We seem to have completely different experiences. Yes, it does produce
> false positives, just like humans do. However, I have seen it find many
> real bugs, including many in patches which already had Reviewed-by: tags
> from (presumably) human reviewers.
Of course it finds bugs. But it also produces - roughly - 80-90% false
positives, completely useless.
This is very poor review score.
>
> Again, it appears that our experience is completely different than mine,
> but after several weeks of getting code reviews from sashiko I do have to
> say that I trust its review feedback significantly more than human reviews.
> Sure, it does not guarantee that a patch is indeed bug free. A human review
> doesn't guarantee it either.
>
>>
>> I will be NAKing every damn tag produced by such tools.
>
> I'd like to see an official policy. Until then I'll ignore your NAK in my
> scope of responsibility.
:)
Best regards,
Krzysztof
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-16 12:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-16 8:05 Stop false review statements Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 12:11 ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 12:16 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski [this message]
2026-05-16 12:23 ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 12:29 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 13:24 ` Laurent Pinchart
2026-05-16 13:45 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 21:10 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2026-05-16 15:20 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2026-05-16 15:36 ` Greg KH
2026-05-16 15:41 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 15:45 ` Greg KH
2026-05-16 15:49 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 18:28 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-05-16 21:29 ` Derek Barbosa
2026-05-16 21:33 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 21:59 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 18:28 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 18:56 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 19:00 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-05-16 19:13 ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 19:25 ` Guenter Roeck
2026-05-16 19:31 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 19:15 ` Roman Gushchin
2026-05-16 20:41 ` Theodore Tso
2026-05-16 22:32 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=221cc52e-9918-43ea-b196-622a8cc6db05@kernel.org \
--to=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kfree@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=sashiko@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=workflows@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox