Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] KVM: Fix and account mem_attr_array reservations abandoned on ENOMEM

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2026, David Ballesteros wrote:
> 
> Haha, I didn't even realize using AI would make me sound like a bot
> until now...
> 
> Jokes aside, I truly appreciate your kindness. I have to admit that even
> though I tried to review everything as thoroughly as possible, this was my
> very first patch submission, which is why I found it a bit tricky to follow
> all the conventions (though that's no excuse). 

No worries, contributing upstream is definitely a gauntlet run.  Calling it "a
bit tricky" is being *very* generous.

> I definitely leaned too heavily on AI for the write-up. With that said, I
> understand the extra work it causes and I am truly sorry. If there's a next
> time,

Hopefully there is a next time, but selfishly, I hope the next wave of security
fixes is to a different subsystem. :-D

> I'll write it myself -- AI at most for a rough first pass, but the
> words that reach the list in general will be mine. Best regards, and thanks
> for the guidance and patience.

In the future, please also wait a reasonable amount of time between versions,
e.g. 1-2 business days for relatively urgent fixes, more for non-urgent things
(though with so many of the guidelines, there are exceptions; use common sense).

With Sashiko and syzbot giving such quick feedback, it's tempting and all too
easy to blast versions back-to-back(-to-back), but that's often counter-productive.
E.g. there's almost no opportunity for a human to step in and provide guidance
(e.g. to point out the existing on-list fixes), the sheer volume of mail adds to
the load of maintainers, and if we overload the bots, then we risk losing some
of that early/prompt feedback.

Thanks again!