Re: Sashiko review email for kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?

[Sean Christopherson]

+KVM and LKML (to capture as many of these discussions possible)

On Wed, May 20, 2026, Pranjal Shrivastava wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 12:18:17AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Hello people with a MAINTAINERS entry that uses kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx as a mailing list!
> > 
> > How would y'all feel about enabling Sashiko[*] emails for kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?  For
> > a variety of reasons, Sashiko currently only logs its reviews to https://sashiko.dev
> > by default.  If subsystems want to receive on-list mails, they need to opt-in.
> > 
> > I really, really want to enable email reviews for KVM x86, as Sashiko has found
> > an almost embarassing number of bugs that (a) would have been painful to debug
> > had they escaped review and (b) I'm not convinced would have been found by
> > traditional review.  And for me at least the signal:noise ratio is more than good
> > enough.  There are still hallucinations and false positives from time to time,
> > but the good outweighs the bad by quite a bit, it's cathartic to flame AI when
> > it's wrong, and worst case scenario I can simply ignore Sashiko.
> > 
> > But, currently Sashiko is only capable of making decisions based on mailing list,
> > i.e. as things stand, _all_ of kvm@ needs to opt-in.  Before I badger Roman to
> > add bespoke logic to Sashiko's email flow, e.g. to special case KVM x86 in some
> > way, I want to see if there's a general consensus in favor (or against) enabling
> > review emails.
> 
> I vote for enabling it, it has proven helpful at multiple places. I
> would wanna ratelimit the # emails it may send in case of a malfunction
> though.

Ya, there's definitely an implied "we'll turn it back off if there are major
problems".  But I don't see any reason to treat Sashiko any differently than
other automated systems in this regard; when bots have been too noisy in the
past, we've complained, and the bot/system was "fixed".