On Mon, 2026-07-27 at 16:05 +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 7/26/26 13:56, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > Please (instruct claude to) use ksft_* helpers for printing > > messages and > > tracking failed and passed tests. > > I'm afraid we won't have time to keep repeating the following: > > Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst > > * Reviewing all AI-generated code > [...] > * Taking full responsibility for the contribution
I did review the code. I missed this one, largely because I was focused more on the mm bits. Not only will I clean it up, I will also make sure that other people using the available Linux kernel AI tooling will automatically avoid repeating this mistake. I submitted some self test checks to review-prompts: https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts/pull/89 And added some commits to kernel-style to create clearer comments: https://github.com/rikvanriel/kernel-style I also tested the patch series against the updated review-prompts and kernel-style guidelines, and the issues that were pointed got caught with the updated tooling. With the gigablock patch series, I tried to edit the default LLM output, and create something vaguely decent. That was a lost cause, which I do not plan to repeat. It was an especially big waste of time with the code that I was never planning to keep, but where I had not thought of an alternative approach yet. The current plan of attack is to add LLM rules every time I get a comment on a patch series that addresses something generalizable that I missed. That way anybody using those tools should have those mistakes caught, and either raised or fixed by tooling, before they even start editing their code. You don't want to review the same mistakes over and over again, and I want to help people avoid sending the same mistakes that were previously made. -- All Rights Reversed.
