Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] selftests/mm: separate GUP microbenchmarking from functional testing

[Sarthak Sharma <sarthak.sharma@arm.com>]

Hi John!

On 5/30/26 1:04 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 5/28/26 10:57 PM, Sarthak Sharma wrote:
>> On 5/28/26 12:17 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 May 2026 19:54:27 +0530 Sarthak Sharma <sarthak.sharma@arm.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Thanks! I went through Sashiko's review.
>>
>> Both the points are valid but look very minor to me: one is a temporary
>> x86 build issue fixed by the next patch and the other is stricter
> 
> This is the sort of claim that an AI will make, in kernel code: "it's
> just a temporary build issue". I've seen this happen during sessions
> when I'm interrogating an AI about something.
> 
> Don't be misled by AI's evaluations, as unless it is guided very
> firmly (sashiko for example has fairly firm guidance, although still
> a work in progress) it will provide routinely terrible advice about
> how to deal with the kernel.
> 
> I'm sure we have something in the "how to contribute" docs that
> explain that patchsets must be bisectable and that there are no
> "minor" build "issues"!
> 
> I'd request that you study those docs and the surrounding ones,
> it won't take long and it will help immunize you against the
> various AI suggestions that seem to be unavoidable problems in
> 2026.
> 
> thanks,

Thanks for the guidance. You're right, I shouldn't have called it a
minor issue just because it was fixed in the next patch.

I have sent a fixup that moves the Makefile hunk from patch 3 to patch
2, so every patch is buildable on its own. If I need to send a v5 after
reviewer feedback, I'll fold this fixup into patch 2 directly.