From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.14]) (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 BB8393D16F6; Mon, 18 May 2026 08:22:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.14 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779092553; cv=none; b=NXtu0Yv0Zzf4T/NYI7a4Xv4qFT4qyOA5sxHDqoI4/ILECfhFKWvdv+hLn1jvejdNQExiHkmF+AKO/iBwWcx1GwN0nwYd2F9i5Lfo40XnLDTnmPEctaj7zU1qcSZWY6RZlEimMU8fVtWnatdCeTmAv65PcOQPiv1EqDRZUP8ZEQ0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779092553; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JKQXM+aklvzg+HECTcbU6iBFBwV9nwFA+IONcsJPURo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Wjay/zVD6h/TQc2FwC49VUTjuPhiBBJ4e77tqyBvALWX52uSMFH4/4qmBXbqafNlZ4goYe2u4vrCdVbHivUipssZWS9lPYn6/BCC/oKGoYlu5u4Bf51Bp2gHGY3AQA8NMWNpUzSa1Hlilkd7JDSpC2/nvNBG5KzBADaGTWaIeOo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=k8sqB1Xv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.14 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="k8sqB1Xv" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1779092552; x=1810628552; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:mime-version; bh=JKQXM+aklvzg+HECTcbU6iBFBwV9nwFA+IONcsJPURo=; b=k8sqB1XvYXZc9/9oC4wmmincRy/LBk0DsQ4ThYW6MYphOBVEsfrHWp8I 6p2twVi92E1rsm0qmVz56Ho5lK/q6Jx0zOJbjyNQuroryJ7ABJY8pKVhJ lUCDcEvLloE/BuZG/PnuPjbMse4uvfaBPEbvYYqLZG/fvXZqfVv93XQ5W LL+YcWq8iUmaNX6A5O0qzhLWkmctzrPGi4WAX09/aQwZPSzeGExAKleTm ZTiBoL05UoiGXTHlybIID1mn84fIMJXktZW+phZelD+pj0W/1l3o95z8Q dt2uq7PupDMiBxOb1BvgjO452UnaqBbnuA78VPj+Kp/+GHjnVimEtZ9Pl Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: dOUSHXj7TJuYf/Qz6pWgjg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 05MQdThCQsG/5j892tyW6A== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11789"; a="79970705" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,241,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="79970705" Received: from orviesa010.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.150]) by fmvoesa108.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 May 2026 01:22:29 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 1uM92fndQOqU2AOGjgD0Rg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: BrsBKavTSHyg+BioSlzHug== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,241,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="238480389" Received: from conormcd-mobl2.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.1]) by orviesa010-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 May 2026 01:22:24 -0700 From: Jani Nikula To: Jonathan Corbet , Guenter Roeck , Krzysztof Kozlowski Cc: sashiko-bot@kernel.org, sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev, sashiko@lists.linux.dev, Linux Kernel Workflows , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , kfree@google.com, Dave Airlie , Simona Vetter Subject: Re: Stop false review statements In-Reply-To: <877bp2m586.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo, Finland References: <221cc52e-9918-43ea-b196-622a8cc6db05@kernel.org> <877bp2m586.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 11:22:20 +0300 Message-ID: <6010df0409abe1c9fc922ce57d7baa6c6998fa49@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Sun, 17 May 2026, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > That said, I was certainly considering *human* reviewers at the time, > and all of the people who agreed with the suggested policy were too. > Adding bots seems like a stretch to me. > > I can't speak for subsystems that require Reviewed-by tags on their > commits, but I'm not sure that their maintainers would accept an > automated review as satisfying that requirement. For the parts of the drm subsystem that have a committer/maintainer model, one of the requirements for pushing is that at least two people have been involved. Reviewed-by is one of the ways to record this is indeed the case. I can't speak for the entire subsystem either, but to me it was always about people, trust, and the community. We may add ways to record that an LLM has reviewed a patch, but I think the fundamental requirement that two human beings have been involved is going to remain. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel