Re: [PATCH 7.2 v10 0/2] skip redundant sync IPIs when TLB flush sent them

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 11:36 AM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
<david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 4/24/26 16:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 16:20:55 +0200 "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/24/26 16:15, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yep.  I'd be OK with an automatic reply-to-all.  Maybe some won't like
> >>> that.
> >>>
> >>> An alternative I've discussed with Roman is an automated
> >>> reply-to-author with a cc to a dedicated list (we could use mm-commits
> >>> for now).
> >>>
> >>> Preferences?
> >>
> >> Reply-to-author would likely be better as a first step.
> >
> > Why do you think so?
>
> The most important part for me is that authors are aware of the reports.
>
> Sending them as a mail forces people to publicly reply to the feedback, and at
> this point in time, I am not convinced that that is the right approach.

But I imagine it's useful for reviewers to see Sashiko's feedback as
well (without having to go look on the website). It's possible that
Sashiko is right but the author isn't convinced, so getting more eyes
on the feedback would help. If Sashiko is wrong, it's still useful for
more people to see it and point it out, instead of Sashiko privately
misguiding the author, especially that reviewers are probably more
likely to tell if Sashiko is right or wrong.

I understand the fear of too much noise, but I think it's easy to
ignore Sashiko if we want to. It's also a good exercise to spell out
why Sashiko is wrong (e.g. improve changelogs/comments to document
assumptions more obviously). We can always tune it down later if we
think it's too much, right?