Re: [PATCH] squashfs: avoid thundering-herd cache wakeups
Andrew Morton <[email protected]> Fri, 7 Aug 2026 11:58:44 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.file-systems |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 17:01:30 +0100 Phillip Lougher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Usama, > > Sashiko (the new patch reviewing AI) failed to apply and review your patch. > > See https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260724190556.1950693-1-usama.arif%40linux.dev > > I have been dealing with this issue all week because Sashiko also rejected my > patch sent this week. > > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260805175900.600140-1-phillip%40squashfs.org.uk > > After quite a bit of investigation, it appears the problem is Sashiko is applying > the patches against the squashfs-next-git URL listed in the MAINTAINERS file. > > Unfortunately that squashfs-next.git tree is unused and twelve years out of date > (last updated 2014). > > See > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > and > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > But as it stands your patch and mine are going nowhere because Andrew won't > pull any patch that has not passed Sashiko. > > See > > https://lwn.net/Articles/1064830/ Geeze, that's very overstated. If Sashiko can't review a thing then that's annoying because sometimes it finds bugs. If it does review a thing and claims to find significant issues then I want to see the developer or maintainer explain why things are OK. If you the maintainer want the patchset merged in this situation then I have no problem with that. > > I'm going to resend my patch with a base-commit: tag to see if it makes > a difference to Sashiko. That would be interesting.