[PATCH net-next 2/2] docs: netdev: clarify expected interactions with LLMs
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Date: 2026-07-24 09:26:29
Subsystem:
documentation, documentation process, networking [general], the rest · Maintainers:
Jonathan Corbet, "David S. Miller", Eric Dumazet, Jakub Kicinski, Paolo Abeni, Linus Torvalds
The official documentation has not captured yet the current impact of AI-generated reviews on the patch process. Explicitly state the status quo and expectations. Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> --- Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
index e58f541c29e0..1739d9f856c3 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst@@ -203,6 +203,22 @@ For RFC postings specifically, if nobody responded in a week - reviewers either missed the posting or have no strong opinions. If the code is ready, repost as a PATCH. +There are 2 services actively providing LLM-generated review on posted patches: + +- https://sashiko.dev/ +- https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/ + +both use the Sashiko infrastructure on top of different models. Reviews are +available after 24h. Patch authors are expected to proactively look into the +AI-generated reviews and handle such feedback as any other kind of review: +either debate it or address it. In both cases a reply on the mailing list is +expected. + +Authors are strongly encouraged to run LLM reviews on the posted patches in +advance of the actual post. Large series triggering a significant amount of +AI-generated feedback will likely get little attention from maintainers and +reviewers. + Emails saying just "ping" or "bump" are considered rude. If you can't figure out the status of the patch from patchwork or where the discussion has landed - describe your best guess and ask if it's correct. For example::
--
2.55.0