On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 10:24:14PM +0200, Nicolai Buchwitz wrote: > On 6.4.2026 21:58, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote: > > [...] > > > > > Hi Nicolai, > > maybe I am missing something but [2] isn't from sashiko.dev but from > > netdev AI CI instead. See: > > https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-review.html?id=0b114a22-9aab-4265-8bfc-ea1b5bca5514 > > You're right, I mixed up the two systems - the example I linked was > from the netdev AI bot, not Sashiko. My mistake on the link. > > I stumbled over Sashiko when I noticed the name appearing more often > in other reviews and then found Jonathan's LWN article about it [1]. > > Both tools are actively reviewing patches on the list today. I think > it makes sense to document both rather than just one: > > The netdev AI bot at netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev > Sashiko at sashiko.dev, which posts reviews publicly on its website > Both use the same review prompts by Chris Mason [2], so there is > common ground - though results will vary between them due to the > different AI models (Claude Opus for netdev-ai, Gemini for Sashiko) > on top of the usual AI uncertainty. > > I think it would be useful to document that AI reviews are happening > but mixing AI bots might confuse people. > > Agreed, I'll rework the patch to distinguish the two systems once > the discussion has been settled. > > > The documentation mentioned for running the AI locally is correctly > > related to netdev AI bot. > > > > I think it would be useful to document that AI reviews are happening > > but mixing AI bots might confuse people. > > > >> Check for findings on your submissions and address > >> +valid ones before a maintainer has to relay the same questions. > >> + > > > > I wonder what would be the consequences for this. If less experienced > > submitters are expected to address issues pointed out by AI bots they > > might work on something that isn't valid. AFAIU, the AI output is only > > forwarded to the submitter after a maintainer reviewed it and believes > > it makes sense. > > Fair point. The wording should make clear that the local tooling is > an optional aid, not an obligation. I'll soften the language around > addressing findings. > > Would appreciate input on how much detail is appropriate here - > should the doc just acknowledge that AI review exists and point to > the tooling, or go into more detail about the workflow?
In general, if a workflow is expected by a subsystem, it should be documented. I don't see much to be gained from not telling submitters what they're expecting to do. More precisely in this case, as a submitter, I would take it pretty badly if I was told to act on the output of a tool that is prone to hallucinations without a maintainer first triaging the comments. > [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/1063292/ > [2] > https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/blob/main/kernel/subsystem/networking.md > > >> +You can also run AI reviews locally before submitting. Instructions > >> +and tooling are available at: > >> + > >> + https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html > >> + > >> Testimonials / feedback > >> ----------------------- > >> > > Thanks for your input > > Nicolai -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
