From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [62.89.141.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA01F1E515; Sun, 10 Aug 2025 19:26:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.89.141.173 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754853983; cv=none; b=p2A7qPAt2jfWiLBcI3R/3gP2+Ax3LIP77SV06AlymEYckMk2khT85Msh/LEAvN24+mFT/pHQT/1qIsorYTdU8Dk9MintfueGXL1EMFh+YbsTdCAOw+gjElElYtwRMKsVg83Xqez19mmC8zfpP37IERntYMnEMNc9CXyuryLX0vo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754853983; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VfQIcjbJkUCauoLPvmbUHT51tS/zQlZt08O8ns7Am4Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nhzNKU2t6kWT/AzFDSmKw7YtkeJYJgd/JdtaoHDe3TgqDUkzO6//JsJG8F+01YpM+ABNRFVa767HEpSCZJHiLVs0MeuDnWkhgsIiyyMduD/pxgVsWOtp9jhtb/YGTq/FBFGDhkiD90NXzWs0Vdb30R0lkwSZXFSRG/HqtD1hp4Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linux.org.uk header.i=@linux.org.uk header.b=CXFHVZTw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=62.89.141.173 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ftp.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linux.org.uk header.i=@linux.org.uk header.b="CXFHVZTw" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.org.uk; s=zeniv-20220401; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=sK4gl5P6D4Zp0gdwRRxyt4cXzSzw8XFOQZ3bGrXhRnE=; b=CXFHVZTwqvyvSZKCuqQ38alkjj 7TP8wmeEF1rQutrqdTiGI1dD9Nb2wfPpfCTuMEsThMk4z38WxK7b3D0NwRZWo4+9FlWdg7/GpE71x Fc9R2mBxloCNXK13ZxeDS1+Drbe1ProyN2haaP/QxFdpY3kvEdhVCFkB8KQreUyTqLmJAAflpsIGI qk+I/R3eVXviWybv8ZhNgEZbktuw9cwC9Dl7799M/oOF9O/gJaf+v35xuYaO9N+9TMC9YrGccV9D5 9AU4XH/jq1JgN8wUX9TE1rE6juYJn2sElnZEEG2OMUBesxezRMLLSjz9HVf+wOl6VMNWZbLl4BnvV YBJQAUww==; Received: from viro by zeniv.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ulBgL-00000009m7K-04YZ; Sun, 10 Aug 2025 19:26:13 +0000 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2025 20:26:12 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Andrew Lunn Cc: Ujwal Kundur , allison.henderson@oracle.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, horms@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, rds-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net] rds: Fix endian annotations across various assignments Message-ID: <20250810192612.GO222315@ZenIV> References: <20250810171155.3263-1-ujwal.kundur@gmail.com> <20250810174705.GK222315@ZenIV> <20250810182506.GL222315@ZenIV> <398e53d8-906d-43c9-9395-f6115dcb945b@lunn.ch> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <398e53d8-906d-43c9-9395-f6115dcb945b@lunn.ch> Sender: Al Viro On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 08:41:49PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > This smells of an LLM generated patch. Maybe, maybe not. > So i think you are somewhat > wasting your time explaining in detail why this is wrong. Well, maybe > in a few generations of LLM it might learn from what you said, but > that does not address the immediate problem. You do realize that there _are_ humans out there, right? Ones capable of learning, that is... > We need developers using LLM to accept they have often wrong, and you > need to spend time and effort: > > 1) Proving it got is wrong. > 2) That after a lot of effort, failing to prove it wrong, accept it might be right. > 3) Proving it actually got it right. > > It took me about 60 seconds to prove the POLLERR change was wrong, and > i know nothing about this code base. So it is in fact not a lot of > effort.