From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B528420877; Tue, 7 Jul 2026 18:53:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783450412; cv=none; b=B78qYi1UMiwfjhWGBIF7ctIvhMnb6uR3Zes6IaPzgDGIPAuY1dKCTar09IKs8OpnJ0ZqSOnBJRUoWT86/HbH0LJE4+k1kirXItpHzeQaJqYG7Bfijnn4bI6fj5qZB1hFJtOxQOM47N7rHp7m1jZATjb0Lu/z0ukz/x/FEC1oq40= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783450412; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DhakKtQ2/I2nlCiLj2KCYK6TDBKIqIPS7WZmebe51PY=; h=MIME-Version:Content-Type:Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Date:Message-Id; b=GPThK7aUzeJZdb+lgxEu0NJ8oWz9W7sXppvypjPAGweHH5ONtIlKoUKQINsCI+O1XixDOf3ZJjFpqIVk6QYaOsJwVk6aaAo51mYdJly1Me1DmH637w5C3RzI6ARc1OdejI7QuG670HXj155214sSU84NF8ygKTUCU0KenqNzZS4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=J9fKkspC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="J9fKkspC" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 434871F000E9; Tue, 7 Jul 2026 18:53:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783450411; bh=pyChHq1ggNdRDcPF8vAKOJh2WfgBck68sOVRmti2nIE=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=J9fKkspChGzsQWCbuM7fCQXHEcZ6c4X4CaX8+LQ8PVWKkWFNVxy6k7XNaYlE5sx95 eV4qwdcsOgU2A4pqHZJoiV+3rG877W2RFftnr9L3X5/BQeZ5KAA3wZQwAkkxQPdWqP vYVYpDeHzaOXNrpSmSQLkj9552kWw6SoutuFGS+EW8tT+CPI/Q7BRxZVfga8T1H5xA mTw4v1/+mUShBHULsmtkLzDktfzeYu7wb16kvmuki8UJK7yVbA8lumqAEnxWA3DIGO Q2lKzjWODadmaEtx8Sk2Yv6P7pP128wFbREKvkP7e6b6UswcwFJCp1X72hG+QFu7R/ 9ZQU1XH8NEw1w== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution From: Christian Brauner To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" , Lorenzo Stoakes , Boris Burkov , Jeff Layton , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Justin Stitt , Carlos Maiolino , Jakub Kicinski , Jori Koolstra , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Brian Foster , Christoph Hellwig , David Disseldorp , Mark Brown , Jani Nikula , Jens Axboe , Vlastimil Babka , "Christian Brauner (Amutable)" , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260707141803.GA254690@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260702211740.GA639365@zen.localdomain> <3f447113-4407-471f-878f-e6d6edafee71@kernel.org> <20260703163251.GB3734786@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <0ba6bf66-e48f-40df-a953-503d317b3dbe@kernel.org> <20260707124031.GC211515@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260707141803.GA254690@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 20:53:23 +0200 Message-Id: <20260707-siebzehn-geleast-gastmahl-4889a8f6b474@brauner> X-Mailer: b4 0.16-dev-4217c X-Developer-Signature: v=1; a=openpgp-sha256; l=3216; i=brauner@kernel.org; h=from:subject:message-id; bh=DhakKtQ2/I2nlCiLj2KCYK6TDBKIqIPS7WZmebe51PY=; b=owGbwMvMwCU28Zj0gdSKO4sYT6slMWT5eqtOF4ipfz0z/tHr88a6IUEdnVkmcyfF2gm3hoZtY jgSEP6no5SFQYyLQVZMkcWh3SRcbjlPxWajTA2YOaxMIEMYuDgFYCJPFBkZGlfc/tjSeml7l7fy 0yKOCp4YlbV/Oxa+jHLmPlMW3pb3kuEno8umtKrXPnL8E7xmtVSeZXUpv/2E6/8d2R1OUX8Dkz8 wAgA= X-Developer-Key: i=brauner@kernel.org; a=openpgp; fpr=4880B8C9BD0E5106FC070F4F7B3C391EFEA93624 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.