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

[Fernando Fernandez Mancera <fmancera@suse.de>]

On 4/6/26 10:24 PM, 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.
> 

Thank you! Regarding this topic it seems people have been already 
discussing this around other subsystems [1]. It might be useful to check 
out similar discussions and outcomes.

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/1064830/

> 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?
> 

To be honest that is hard for me to tell, I am not a maintainer and not 
the one doing the forwarding currently. I think there isn't an official 
workflow regarding this. Maybe a good starter would be to just mention 
that they exist. Or maybe this is a good opportunity to define an 
official workflow!

Thanks,
Fernando.