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.
