On 5/1/26 03:56, SeongJae Park wrote: > On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:24:24 -0700 SeongJae Park <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Andrew, >> >> On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 07:48:37 -0700 Andrew Morton <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Add, thanks. >>> >>> As mentioned provately, Sashiko claims to have found things which it >>> didn't see in the RFC. >>> >>> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected] >> >> TL; DR: I find no blocker for this patch series from the Sashiko reviews. >> >> Now sashiko replies its reviews for DAMON patches to authors and >> [email protected]. So I replied [1,2,3] my review of the reviews to >> those >> on [email protected] mailing list. As I mentioned on the TL;DR, I find >> no >> blocker for this series. >> >> And I think you didn't see those because those are sent to only authors and >> [email protected]. >> >> I nowadays reply-all to original recipients only if Sashiko found a blocker. >> I >> will also add short notice for non-RFC patches if Sashiko found zero issue. > > ... Now I think the short notice is only redundant and silly, as the full > review is available on damon@ list and the one who primarily interested in > (Andrew) understands that. I feel like the short-notice reply-all only > increase unnecessary traffic and my redundant typing. I will not do the short > notice broadcasting, unless someone makes a diffeernt voice.
For Damon Andrew should for now just trust your ACKs. If it has your ACK, it's good to go. In the future, I expect you would pick up the patches yourself, which is where you as the component maintainer would look for any blockers. So for Damon patches I don't think we need the AI review notices from Andrew. -- Cheers, David
