Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution

[Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>]

On 2026-07-07 17:18 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 03:28:49PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > On 7/7/26 14:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 11:49:31AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > >> On 7/7/26 11:20, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the silence suggests nobody :)
> > >>>
> > >>> What we could do is send a patch to simply add a section on adding a comment
> > >>> explaining _what_ used an LLM and strongly suggesting it would be helpful to do
> > >>> so.
> > >>>
> > >>> That should hopefully be uncontroversial, then later (or alongside that?) we
> > >>> could submit an RFC for making the language move to 'you MUST do this', as that
> > >>> will probably be the more controversial bit.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe we should just spell out about which scenario we care about where we really
> > >> expect the disclosure.
> > >>
> > >> Sure, it might be more controversial and we could have that in a separate patch.
> > >>
> > >> I was thinking of the following end result:
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst
> > >> index 899f4459c52d2..4c2ab4dfc6da7 100644
> > >> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst
> > >> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst
> > >> @@ -40,20 +40,37 @@ Attribution
> > >>  ===========
> > >>  
> > >>  When AI tools contribute to kernel development, proper attribution
> > >> -helps track the evolving role of AI in the development process.
> > >> -Contributions should include an Assisted-by tag in the following format::
> > >> +helps track the evolving role of AI in the development process. Further,
> > >> +for reviewers and maintainers it is also crucially important to know how
> > >> +AI tools were used.
> > >>  
> > >> -  Assisted-by: AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION [TOOL1] [TOOL2]
> > >> +Contributions that used AI to generate significant portions of code,
> > >> +comments, or patch descriptions must include an Assisted-by tag in the
> > >> +following format::
> > >>  
> > >> -Where (preferred):
> > >> +  Assisted-by: LLM # brief description of usage
> > >> +
> > >> +Or alternatively::
> > >> +
> > >> +  Assisted-by: AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION # brief description of usage
> > > 
> > > I would like to drop this one. As I understand, several people objected
> > > to including the product name in the git history as it is just free
> > > adverising, and nobody objected to dropping it.
> > 
> > Yeah. I mean, we could go the following direction (dropping the models and
> > encouraging also a description of usage for other tools), but not sure how
> > much pushback we will get:
> 
> I haven't heard anyone involved in this mail thread objecting to the
> concepts you translated into sentences below, so I think it's worth a
> try. Of course there may be objections from people who are not aware of
> this very conversation.

Then someone can basically just merge the original patch I sent since
everyone seems to agree on that front. And then the extension to include
how the LLM was used can be discussed in a separate patch.