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 <[email protected]> >>> 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.
