RFC: Enable Sashiko code reviews for kexec at lists.infradead.org

[David Matlack]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 6:02 PM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin at linux.dev> wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 2, 2026, at 10:59 AM, David Matlack <dmatlack at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2026 at 2:18 AM Pratyush Yadav <pratyush at kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> +Cc Roman because I am complaining about Sashiko ;-)
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 02 2026, Baoquan He wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 09/02/26 at 11:04am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >>>> Hi Baoquan,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2026 at 01:52:51PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> >>>>> On 09/02/26 at 07:34am, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2026 at 01:27:34PM -0700, David Matlack wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi kexec@ mailing list and maintainers,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would like to enable Sashiko code reviews for patches sent to the
> >>>>>>> kexec mailing list. I have found it useful for patches I have sent and
> >>>>>>> reviewed on the kvm and linux-pci mailing lists, which have Sashiko
> >>>>>>> enabled.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I sent a pull request to Sashiko to add kexec here:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/pull/474
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> >>>>>> index e6e4fb57f..e9ad97708 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> >>>>>> +++ b/sashiko.dev/email_policy.toml
> >>>>>> @@ -175,6 +175,12 @@ reply_to_author = false
> >>>>>> cc_individuals = false
> >>>>>> cc = ["Chuck Lever <cel at kernel.org>", "Jeff Layton <jlayton at kernel.org>", "Anna Schumaker <anna at kernel.org>"]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +[subsystems.kexec]
> >>>>>> +lists = ["kexec at lists.infradead.org"]
> >>>>>> +reply_to_author = true
> >>>>>> +send_positive_review = true
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do we really want those?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some components don't want to CC list, then other people are welcome to
> >>>>> drop any comment during reviewing, while cc to maintainer and author
> >>>>> looks good to me. Just an input, no objection to any move.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant do we really want extra emails saying
> >>>> sashiko is happy?
> >>>
> >>> Oh, sorry. I misunderstood, I thought you had agreed to introduce
> >>> sashiko to part of list/author/maintainer or all.
> >>>
> >>> I think there are two different ways and they have different impact:
> >>>
> >>> 1) CC list (CC author and maintainer can be ignored beause all people
> >>> can see it)
> >>
> >> This is a side topic, but if we only Cc the list then Sashiko won't Cc
> >> the other people in the thread, like the usual "reply to all" every mail
> >> clients does. It will _only_ Cc the list. See [0] for example.
> >>
> >> I don't think that is a good idea, because Sashiko might complain about
> >> something, and then the patch author can reply to the complaint. People
> >> who are not subscribed to the list will neither see Sashiko's complaint
> >> nor the author's response. So they lose a useful part of the patch
> >> review process.
> >>
> >> I am one of those people. I don't subscribe to any mailing lists and
> >> instead use lei [1] to fetch them. I treat my inbox as the primary
> >> stream of patches, and then glance at the lists every now and then. If I
> >> get some patches in my inbox but then I don't get any of the follow-ups
> >> from the author to Sashiko, that's annoying. Sure, I might see them on
> >> the list later, but it is still annoying.
>
> It feels like there are two types of people: some know how to use email filters and some don’t.
> Unfortunately, the latter group is often very vocal about what they don’t want
> to see on mailing lists. I can easily see the problem with too much ai-generated noise
> (and useful information as well), so no complaints from me, just saying that there is a reason
> sashiko is fairly conservative here.
>
> >>
> >> And of course, there might be patches that touch multiple subsystems and
> >> maintainers of that subsystem might not subscribe to or track kexec@ at
> >> all. So they will entirely miss the conversation.
> >>
> >> If Sashiko is useful enough to send replies on the list, then I think it
> >> is useful enough to reply to everyone.
> >
> > It looks like this can be configured:
> >
> > - reply_all=true will have Sashiko reply to everyone on the To/Cc line.
> > - cc_individuals=true will have Sashiko include all inidividuals from the
> >   To/Cc line of the original patch.
> >
> >>
> >> IIRC some people have complained in the past about automatically getting
> >> replies from Sashiko so maybe that is why this behaviour exists? Roman,
> >> is that correct? Is there any appetite yet to change that behaviour?
>
> Can you, please, describe, what behavior do you want?
>
> >>
> >> Or could we perhaps have an unsubscribe mechanism where people who don't
> >> want to see anything from Sashiko can unsubscribe themselves and Sashiko
> >> will skip them when replying?
>
> This is the territory I don’t really want to go, honestly. Not a dealbreaker if there is a very strong
> reason to implement it, but I don’t think we have similar lists for other tools like syzbot or the build verifier.
> I feel it’s more about the politics around ai then a real technical reason (it’s like super trivial to drop emails from
> a specific sender), so I’d avoid this if possible.

I synced with Pratyush offline and we agreed adding
cc_individuals=true is the best way to address his use-case.

I'm not hearing any other pushback on enabling Sashiko so I say let's
proceed with the updated PR and go from there.

>
> Thanks
>
> >>
> >> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20260902072059.90ADC1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org/
> >> [1] https://public-inbox.org/lei.txt
> >>
> >>>  This equals to cc author and push other reviewers away. And no
> >>>  reviewers will be patient and curious enough to check the sashiko
> >>>  report except of maintainers. Because maintainers need pick patch
> >>>  and may check if all reported issues are handled;
> >>>
> >>> 2) Cc maintainers when patch is cooked
> >>>  Maintainers tell patch author to check the report. Maybe CC patch
> >>>  author directly can save maintainers' effort.
> >>>
> >>> I personally think 2) is good. About whether introducing sashiko,
> >>> I would vote yes. I buy token by myself, sashiko would be a plus.
> >>
> >> FWIW, Sashiko already tracks the kexec@ list and you can see all the
> >> patches in the web interface [2]. So you don't need to burn your tokens
> >> on reviewing kexec patches ;-)
> >>
> >> What David is proposing is to send those reviews to the list.
> >>
> >> [2] https://sashiko.dev/#/?list=org.infradead.lists.kexec
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Baoquan
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Pratyush Yadav