From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ekdawn.com (mail.ekdawn.com [46.225.164.110]) (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 69AF03B27CC; Fri, 3 Jul 2026 09:31:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.225.164.110 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783071068; cv=none; b=hoXuFp6/kNmFe3IQuK4VHZ9dZ++AKM8T3i4AAd8iJxmYl1a6kQg38nCHAOTq8v38gBmWSva9tvvFfRYtt+/epptalvUQUjmT6F2odOnFXI67ZYoe0OjSTkvJAWtYLVg9UWUC6R4qQDIdQ1TQQpi71M/RTvbkEDdnxPETzm/ptvY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783071068; c=relaxed/simple; bh=D3imulWv9RUeQTwUgvoIo8iOKWXUvpeew+2rPBCYZus=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=QmwXopbvEo6zMPAYbAzeIDRoUveFGoiE11PSJCZzmG+9imGRCSgFFKQy4rpzMiD/n8LXMQzTo7fAplUsiyKLiZsvBzVbKU5YjRQf6U5hL6C8gw09vNX354Jn3aje/2FwrgfVoq3if4BDTxkKcA3OGtJQxVv3ECU4hevUZxHTP00= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=horse64.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=horse64.org; dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=horse64.org header.i=@horse64.org header.b=nIAl3Jpr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=46.225.164.110 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=horse64.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=horse64.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=horse64.org header.i=@horse64.org header.b="nIAl3Jpr" Received: by mail.ekdawn.com (Postfix) id 74F671E0048; Fri, 03 Jul 2026 09:21:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=horse64.org; s=dkim1; t=1783070490; bh=D3imulWv9RUeQTwUgvoIo8iOKWXUvpeew+2rPBCYZus=; h=Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From:From:Sender:To:CC:Subject: Message-Id:Date; b=nIAl3JprrsOPTRzd84n/HsB0UDubDEg/syplYSv0tyqvosddGMAOJ+skzPu9ccAmF R5koCsJAKV60FwrdBYoz8DpC/heL9pPs9sieclHl161fGmzRKl2FRrqpod3JsktVVm ZjfljiaUoRzyKzTwLS+ASQOQVqZl2KWVm+nAm/j00OThGKe61eVDSjkxdqrBivCgYl BuSg0+X+l6JGWL6u3Pn0dNCMCIMbYicXt0XzI65kvW3e7E5fHXzl4PZgzoqH4AzJr7 +XMq+bBxdEQDe2nS8kdG2kMU/yEexIinG0B2VboTdEBLueTkLZ+aZp/2z0xj1F8KDH Cu/vCLxcDeXKuhUwFErk/vKlDdeH+42RXPN8rnMbTEihs0hcWdr3beB50ia/RlSvAD Ngpcl5NBzu0RnTsBiEQPOaC44O1h8ENDFv1PCQ14jufsnEYVjFaFFn6OiH5b3dSKIQ fpCrdOYl3aMmhpIBFjuDpAJ0TWU0ixo7LbboBza9y/PDVU13Pir/buaScHLbJfXbVy k4MU/OXc6ej8Oyu/2J6o0hyqHD9dZ8wiexGy1ca+h80TSLZwMQ3gNdTumKf11e87UO XSoiDx1RRZmHv4GxJ/QndtuRq1RdbuXa3zzBepoGgzyL+r8nJtmLec3EimUlD44twV 6cpZyxiSSR4vBgTXDD/qhz/0= Message-ID: <53942438-a44d-4578-b1c6-d45c2af1767d@horse64.org> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 11:21:28 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution To: Christian Brauner , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet Cc: Jens Axboe , David Hildenbrand , Jeff Layton , Vlastimil Babka , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org References: <20260701-work-coding-assistants-v1-1-a20a94d1d606@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Ellie In-Reply-To: <20260701-work-coding-assistants-v1-1-a20a94d1d606@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 7/1/26 5:54 PM, Christian Brauner wrote: > I remain very confused by our coding assistant contribution guidelines. > I'm going to be a bit polemic now but this seriously in good faith. > > Why precisely do we require all this detailed information about what > specific coding assistant was used? > > I find it very irritating that our git history has effectively started > to function a bit like a free advertising platform for a bunch of AI > companies and their proprietary agents and models. > > And it reamins unclear to me what exactly we do get out of this detailed > information: Do we want to run statistical analysis on what agent and > model is used the most and publish that on LWN at some point? > > I acknowledge that my stance is even more radical: imho we would just > stop it with any disclosure requirements completely. Sorry to drop in as a relatively uninformed person, but it seems like the following mails would be relevant for that discussion: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e12330b9-c29e-45ca-9375-9e3d13426d85@horse64.org/T/ If LLM code were no longer committed to the kernel, which wouldn't exclude using an LLM to pinpoint problem spots and security bugs as long as it's not used to produce the fix itself, then the commits also would no longer need an attribution. Regards, Ellie