Linus Torvalds used Claude Code to build a Linux page cache fix that hit 23x read throughput, but kernel reviewers found a race before anything merged.
Maybe it did, but apparently the code was not properly reviewed initially, so there could be other hidden problems.
Of course that’s the same for human made code, but there’s a problem in only judging code from how it performs, and not actually understanding the code. And that seems to be the situation with a lot of AI code.
100% that is the worst place to have the problem originate.
I have rarely disagreed with Linus Torvalds on things regarding the kernel, and maybe I’m wrong, but I strongly disagree with him on this issue. Contributing code nobody understands cannot be a good thing.
Is it an understanding failure, an unexpected interaction, or just an existing issue now exposed? A 23x performance increase could very well expose an existing race condition that systems weren’t fast enough to run into.
People make mistakes. Software bugs existing at all is proof of this. This is certainly not the first time a change Torvalds approved has an issue, and it won’t be the last.
There’s a reason code is reviewed, and there’s a reason people still go through after it is approved and verify. The process is working exactly as designed, the way it has for decades before AI coding.
Expecting absolute perfection is ridiculous, the anti-AI circlejerk acting like only AI fucks up just makes them look ridiculous. Any developer could have developed this fix, and there would be no article. Nothing in this issue is specific to AI usage and treating it like it is somehow special just undermines arguments against AI slop and vibe coding in general.
Not based on speculation, based on numerous analysis of the problems with using AI code you don’t understand.
Clearly Linus failed to understand the code, otherwise he wouldn’t have suggested it for submission.
You seem to have a problem with criticism of Linus, is it a religious thing?
Race Conditions are common. This isn’t new to AI. Nobody talks about them though unless they lead to security issues (like with XFS, which had one for 10 years and only fixed recently).
There is a lot happening in the kernel, its not always a matter of looking in one tiny location. A race condition is pretty broad and can lead to many things.
Patches get rejected all the time, for reasons including race conditions which are identified.
If you check the post, other developers had tried and failed to fix the same issue. He’s not the only one. It was just yet another failed attempt
Optimisation is HARD, and always has been.
Finally, you say “suggested it for submission”. That code would go to a staging repo first for testing. He wasn’t suggesting pushing it immediately to the main tree…
Standard development tools (at least for my development work) wouldn’t catch race conditions (maybe commercial ones / high end ones would)… AI is actually far better at detecting these things
This isn’t a unique or interesting story in any capacity… It’s boring and normal
Of course of course. How dare you blaspheme against our Lord and Saviour, filthy infidel!
But anyway, I’d like to be as enlightened as you. Could you name any of those numerous analyses that detail exactly what Torvalds did and what he failed to understand?
No I can’t, because those are so general and commonly known, that if you somehow are unaware, you must have been living under a rock for the past year.
The second option is that you are just trolling or for some reason is in denial.
Either way I’m not wasting my time on any of those options.
Maybe it did, but apparently the code was not properly reviewed initially, so there could be other hidden problems.
Of course that’s the same for human made code, but there’s a problem in only judging code from how it performs, and not actually understanding the code. And that seems to be the situation with a lot of AI code.
And particularly disturbing when the human understanding failure is from the original and lead Linux developer.
100% that is the worst place to have the problem originate.
I have rarely disagreed with Linus Torvalds on things regarding the kernel, and maybe I’m wrong, but I strongly disagree with him on this issue. Contributing code nobody understands cannot be a good thing.
The code still undergoes the exact same code review as before, because humans were the original slop coders.
The standards needed for code to be accepted haven’t changed at all. Even the code Linus personally is reviewed…
You people act like Linux adopted an all-AI pipeline.
Is it an understanding failure, an unexpected interaction, or just an existing issue now exposed? A 23x performance increase could very well expose an existing race condition that systems weren’t fast enough to run into.
People make mistakes. Software bugs existing at all is proof of this. This is certainly not the first time a change Torvalds approved has an issue, and it won’t be the last.
There’s a reason code is reviewed, and there’s a reason people still go through after it is approved and verify. The process is working exactly as designed, the way it has for decades before AI coding.
Expecting absolute perfection is ridiculous, the anti-AI circlejerk acting like only AI fucks up just makes them look ridiculous. Any developer could have developed this fix, and there would be no article. Nothing in this issue is specific to AI usage and treating it like it is somehow special just undermines arguments against AI slop and vibe coding in general.
I’d say do better but that’s not likely to happen.
So, let me get this right. You’re disapproving on how things were handled based on your speculation of how it went?
Not based on speculation, based on numerous analysis of the problems with using AI code you don’t understand.
Clearly Linus failed to understand the code, otherwise he wouldn’t have suggested it for submission.
You seem to have a problem with criticism of Linus, is it a religious thing?
You understand it less it sounds like.
This isn’t a unique or interesting story in any capacity… It’s boring and normal
Of course of course. How dare you blaspheme against our Lord and Saviour, filthy infidel!
But anyway, I’d like to be as enlightened as you. Could you name any of those numerous analyses that detail exactly what Torvalds did and what he failed to understand?
No I can’t, because those are so general and commonly known, that if you somehow are unaware, you must have been living under a rock for the past year.
The second option is that you are just trolling or for some reason is in denial.
Either way I’m not wasting my time on any of those options.