Re: (sashiko status) [PATCH 0/2] Docs/admin-guide/mm/damon: warn commit_inputs vs other params race

[SeongJae Park]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:22:05 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 12:32:26 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 29 Mar 2026 20:05:53 +0200 Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2026 at 08:49:16AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > Forwarding sashiko.dev review status for this thread.
> > > > 
> > > > # review url: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260329153052.46657-1-sj@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > 
> > > Why are you doing this?  If we want to see the review, can't we just go
> > > and look at the tool itself?
> > 
> > We can.  But it is bit cumbersome to opening web browser and moving my focus to
> > there.  Reading everything on the mailing tool is easier for some people like
> > me.  Like some test bots send reports are replying to patches, or we sometimes
> > forwarding bugzilla reports to mailing lists in a form of a plain text mail.
> > 
> > Secondly, I have to share my opinions about the reviews, as many times AI
> > reviews need human's opinions.  There is no good way to do that on the web ui
> > of the tool (sashiko) for now, and I think this mail based flow is the best.
> 
> I do agree with Greg that it's all a bit excessive.  Thanks for your
> your diligence, but perhaps dial it back a bit?  It's OK - we're all
> trying to figure out how best to utilize this tool.

Thank you for your kind words, Andrew.  I understand and admit the fact that
this looks excessive.

> 
> I view Sashiko as primarily an author tool.  Sometimes I call it
> checkpatch++.

Thank you for sharing your perspective.  This is helpful at what you want from
the use of the tool, thank you.

My view of sashiko was a human reviewer that having very odd characteristic and
cannot answer to my feedback for a reason, but still being useful in many
cases.  Hence I wanted to help the special reviewer be able to communicate with
others on the mailing list.  And I was thinking anyway that's what sashiko will
do, because I saw sending review as mail as one of TODO items for sashiko, from
the public announcement, and I onboarded DAMON for that.

But apparently not everyone is sharing same view.  My understanding of the TODO
item in sashiko public announcement may also be biased.  Maybe being a
subsystem's sole maintainer that looking for a reviewer made such uncautiously
biased perspectives.

> In a better world, author would be able to sort out
> Sashiko issues before ever sending out the patchset.  But in this
> world, a public send is needed to obtain that review.
> 
> So what we're presently seeing is author development activity which is
> unfortunately and inappropriately being conducted on a public list.

Makes sense.  Now I understand why you and Roman were discussing having a
separate mailing list for sharing the reviews via mail as a path forward, and
I agree that could be a good option.

> 
> Personally, I pay only a little attention to author's Sashiko activity.
> Just enough to see whether I should pay more attention.  If author
> says "oops, let me redo" then fine, I'll await the next spin.  If
> author says "that was all nonsense" then fine, time to take a closer
> look.

Makes sense.  I will try to keep sharing necessary information, but for only
targetted audiences, with less traffic.


Thanks,
SJ