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

["David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>]

On 7/7/26 12:01, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Thanks for your patch!
> 
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2026 at 11:53, David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org> wrote:
>> --- 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
>> +
>> +Where::
>>
>>  * ``AGENT_NAME`` is the name of the AI tool or framework
>>  * ``MODEL_VERSION`` is the specific model version used
>> -* ``[TOOL1] [TOOL2]`` are optional specialized analysis tools used
>> -  (e.g., coccinelle, sparse, smatch, clang-tidy)
>> +
>> +If other tools were used, they should be specified through a dedicated
>> +Assisted-by tag in the following format::
>> +
>> +  Assisted-by: [TOOL1] [TOOL2]
>> +
>> +Where ``[TOOL1] [TOOL2]`` are specialized analysis tools used
>> +(e.g., coccinelle, sparse, smatch, clang-tidy)
> 
> Unlike LLMs above, all of these are deterministic...
> 
>>
>>  Basic development tools (git, gcc, make, editors) should not be listed.
> 
> ... just like these.
> So why treat them different?

I didn't write that original paragraph, so I really can't tell ... I mean, it is
good practice to document usage of coccinelle at least, or when a problem was
found through sparse.

-- 
Cheers,

David