Re: [PATCH RFC] mm/gup: batch contiguous pages in follow_page_mask() and return them via a pages array

["Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" <ljs@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Aug 03, 2026 at 02:33:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 8/1/26 14:25, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Sat, 2026-08-01 at 10:54 +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks for doing a human pass but it LLM's habits really carried
> >> through
> >> here. In general:
> >>
> >> - No walls of text please - fewer words are better, clarity is king.
> >>
> >> - Don't write the code in English as a comment/commit msg - redudant
> >> and
> >>   distracting.
> >>
> >> - Sensible patch separation obviously please.
> >>
> >> - Write as elegant/reasonable code as possible. If the code you touch
> >> was
> >>   some horrible mega-function, take the time to refactor it. Pay down
> >>   technical debt.
> >>
> >> These are all things LLMs are extremely bad at (even fable). So they
> >> need
> >> to be done by a human.
> >
> > LLMs can apply those rules, when expressed in a way
> > that they get interpreted unambiguously by the LLM.
> >
> > I'm slowly building up a collection of such rules
> > in the kernel-style repository.
> >
> > AI can write in any style you ask it to.
> >
> > /*
> >  * Long in the Halls of Rq the weary wait,
> >  * till __schedule, herald of the turning years,
> >  * calls forth the next to walk the road of fate
> >  * as prev fades west.
> >  */
> >
> > AI can also flag such issues, once it knows to
> > look for them.
>
> Just the important note that people can use LLMs to make themselves
> more efficient (if they think so), but not by delegating the hard work
> of sifting through slop (code and/or comments) to the poor souls that have
> to review it.
>
> LLM exercises should be done behind closed curtains without us noticing.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> In order for them to produce code that is at least a
> >>> good starting point for editing, they need to follow
> >>> rules.
> >>>
> >>> Once you apply the rules, Opus and Sonnet do not
> >>> produce results that are all that different from
> >>> each other.
> >>>
> >>> I just added a few new rules, so the tooling won't
> >>> even let me create too-large patches any more.
> >>
> >> I mean, sure, but what's needed here is human Rik :)
> >
> > The 80/20 rule comes into play here.
> >
> > If AI produces junk, the person starting with
> > LLM-produced code can spend days cleaning it
> > up, without getting things in a reasonable state.
>
> Right. But what happens instead is that people think it's okay to not do
> that work and instead workslop us.
>
> That is simply not acceptable, and we'll have to start ignoring people
> where this is a recurring theme. We simply don't have the time to do other
> peoples work.

Yes exactly, this is the problem and this patch was a prime example of it.

The theme here is 'please don't add to the impossible review load' or you will
receive a >/dev/null resolution to the problem :)

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David

--
Cheers, Lorenzo