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

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. 

> 
> > 
> > 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.

If the AI produces a better starting point, the 
remaining issues will stand out like a sore thumb, 
and it's much easier to find and fix them.

I agree there will always be a need for human
judgment, but that doesn't mean we should not
improve our tooling.


-- 
All Rights Reversed.