docs: netdev: clarify expected interactions with LLMs

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>
Reviewed-by: Nicolai Buchwitz <nb@tipi-net.de>
Reviewed-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@kernel.org>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/83360de7addb13a3b5f4d5e722148f248fdb2ae0.1784884817.git.pabeni@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>

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::