Add a section about Sashiko, the Linux Foundation's open-source
AI review system for kernel patches. Contributors can check review
feedback on the Sashiko website and address findings proactively,
reducing the need for maintainers to relay the same questions.

Also point to the local review tooling at netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev
for contributors who want to run AI reviews before submitting.

Signed-off-by: Nicolai Buchwitz <nb@tipi-net.de>
---
Sashiko [1] reviews are already being used on the list (e.g. [2])
but there's no mention of them in the netdev docs. Add a section
so contributors know they can check and respond to AI review
feedback directly.

Based on Jakub's reviewer guidance patch [3].

[1] https://sashiko.dev/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260324024235.929875-1-kuba@kernel.org/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260406175334.3153451-1-kuba@kernel.org/
---
 Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
index bda93b459a0533fa1adfd11b756a4f47d1dbaa22..27296afb05d3828a350b4ed5c16907672db9785d 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
@@ -559,6 +559,19 @@ Reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth review of submissions
 and not focus exclusively on process issues, trivial or subjective
 matters like code formatting, tags etc.
 
+AI-assisted review
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Patches posted to netdev are automatically reviewed by the Sashiko
+AI review system (https://sashiko.dev/). Results are posted publicly
+on the website. Check for findings on your submissions and address
+valid ones before a maintainer has to relay the same questions.
+
+You can also run AI reviews locally before submitting. Instructions
+and tooling are available at:
+
+  https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
+
 Testimonials / feedback
 -----------------------
 

---
base-commit: d00749db443cf420a882c020ce0e6bb5c43009de
change-id: 20260406-nb-docs-ai-review-28b4ff21cf5e

Best regards,
-- 
Nicolai Buchwitz <nb@tipi-net.de>

On 4/6/26 9:40 PM, Nicolai Buchwitz wrote:
> Add a section about Sashiko, the Linux Foundation's open-source
> AI review system for kernel patches. Contributors can check review
> feedback on the Sashiko website and address findings proactively,
> reducing the need for maintainers to relay the same questions.
> 
> Also point to the local review tooling at netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev
> for contributors who want to run AI reviews before submitting.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicolai Buchwitz <nb@tipi-net.de>
> ---
> Sashiko [1] reviews are already being used on the list (e.g. [2])
> but there's no mention of them in the netdev docs. Add a section
> so contributors know they can check and respond to AI review
> feedback directly.
> 
> Based on Jakub's reviewer guidance patch [3].
> 
> [1] https://sashiko.dev/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260324024235.929875-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260406175334.3153451-1-kuba@kernel.org/
> ---
>   Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 13 +++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> index bda93b459a0533fa1adfd11b756a4f47d1dbaa22..27296afb05d3828a350b4ed5c16907672db9785d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> @@ -559,6 +559,19 @@ Reviewers are highly encouraged to do more in-depth review of submissions
>   and not focus exclusively on process issues, trivial or subjective
>   matters like code formatting, tags etc.
>   
> +AI-assisted review
> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +
> +Patches posted to netdev are automatically reviewed by the Sashiko
> +AI review system (https://sashiko.dev/). Results are posted publicly
> +on the website. 

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

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.

Thanks,
Fernando.

> +You can also run AI reviews locally before submitting. Instructions
> +and tooling are available at:
> +
> +  https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
> +
>   Testimonials / feedback
>   -----------------------
>

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.

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?

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/1063292/
[2] 
https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/blob/main/kernel/subsystem/networking.md

> 
> Thanks,
> Fernando.
> 
>> +You can also run AI reviews locally before submitting. Instructions
>> +and tooling are available at:
>> +
>> +  https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
>> +
>>   Testimonials / feedback
>>   -----------------------
>> 

Thanks for your input

Nicolai

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.

On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 10:24:14PM +0200, 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.
> 
> 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?

In general, if a workflow is expected by a subsystem, it should be
documented. I don't see much to be gained from not telling submitters
what they're expecting to do.

More precisely in this case, as a submitter, I would take it pretty
badly if I was told to act on the output of a tool that is prone to
hallucinations without a maintainer first triaging the comments.

> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/1063292/
> [2] https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/blob/main/kernel/subsystem/networking.md
> 
> >> +You can also run AI reviews locally before submitting. Instructions
> >> +and tooling are available at:
> >> +
> >> +  https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
> >> +
> >>   Testimonials / feedback
> >>   -----------------------
> >> 
> 
> Thanks for your input
> 
> Nicolai

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart