Re: [PATCH v2 02/22] x86/mm: Generalize LDT remap into "mm-local region"

[Brendan Jackman]

TANGENT - off topic, removing most people from CC.

On Mon Mar 23, 2026 at 12:01 PM UTC, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> On Fri Mar 20, 2026 at 7:47 PM UTC, Dave Hansen wrote:

>>> +		 * We use tlb_gather_mmu_fullmm() to avoid confusing the
>>> +		 * range-tracking logic in __tlb_adjust_range().
>>> +		 */
>>
>> Imperative voice, please.
>
> Yeah I don't think I'm ever gonna stop making this mistake. Any LLM
> should be able to catch this for me, I think it's time to find a way to
> get that into my pre-mail workflow.

Just dumping what I learned from briefly looking into this:

It looks like Sashiko [0] and Chris Mason's review-prompts are not really
well geared-up to deal with trivialities like this right now, they are
still evolving fast and focussing on much more advanced topics, and
AFAICS they don't have a standardised way for the agent to "shell out"
to a cheap model to do simple checks like this. So for now until that
stuff crystallises a bit more I'll just use a dumb standalone script.

I wrote a quick prompt to check for these particular rules and found
that the "pro" model worked perfectly but took ages (and probably an
obscene amount of energy) while gemini-2.5-flash-lite was instant but
very unreliable. Then I asked the pro model to rework the prompt for the
benefit of the small model. Its version made the small model works
reliably. 

I'll paste the prompt below. The command to run it using Google's stuff
is:

gemini --prompt "$(cat check_patch.md) $(git show)" --model "gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview"

I assume open models that fit on a laptop can handle this task too but I
haven't tried it as Google's tooling seems to be hardcoded to funnel
you to the cloud service. Yuck, something to figure out on the weekend I
suppose.

(Alternatively I bet a plain old NLTK script can handle these particular
rules. But that will run into limiations quickly while dumb LLMs are
generic).

[0] https://lwn.net/ml/all/87jyv7a1q5.fsf@xxxxxxxxx/

---

You are a strict code reviewer. You will be given a patch file, formatted email, or Git diff.
Your only task is to review the English style of newly added code comments (lines starting with '+' that are comments, e.g., '+ //', '+ /*', '+ *', or '+ #'). Ignore all actual code, variable names, and removed lines.

Flag a comment if it violates either of these two rules:

1. Avoid personal pronouns. For example: Do not use: I, we, you, our, us, my, your. Other pronouns such as "it" are fine.

2. Use the imperative mood to describe what the code does. (e.g., Use "Return the value" instead of "Returns the value" or "This returns the value").

Output format:
If there are no violations, output exactly: "LGTM".
If there are violations, output the snippet from the input where the violation occurs. Prefix each line with a '>' character, followed by a brief description of the violated rule.

### Example 1 (Pronoun Violation) ###
Input Patch:
+                /*
+                 * Although free_pgd_range() is intended for freeing user
+                 * page-tables, it also works out for kernel mappings on x86.
+                 * We use tlb_gather_mmu_fullmm() to avoid confusing the
+                 * range-tracking logic in __tlb_adjust_range().
+                 */
+                tlb_gather_mmu_fullmm(&tlb, mm);

Output:
>+                 * We use tlb_gather_mmu_fullmm() to avoid confusing the
>+                 * range-tracking logic in __tlb_adjust_range().
Avoid personal pronouns ("We").

### Example 2 (Imperative Mood Violation) ###
Input Patch:
+ // Initializes the counter and prepares the struct.
+ counter = 0;

Output:
>+ // Initializes the counter and prepares the struct.
Use the imperative mood (e.g., "Initialize the counter...").

<END INSTRUCTIONS>
<BEGIN PATCH FOR REVIEW>