Re: [PATCH net-next] docs: netdev: document AI-assisted review tooling

[Laurent Pinchart]

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