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

[Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 04:10:07PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 03:29:44PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > > On 7/7/26 11:55, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > LGTM! Do you want to send that then? People can comment on the actual path then
> > > > (probably worth cc'ing everybody here on that also).
> > >
> > > Let's first gather some more thoughts on the rough direction before spinning of
> > > yet another discussion. :)
> >
> > I'm suggesting sending a simple, uncontroversial, change to get movement rather
> > than continue this never-ending talking shop :)
>
> Oh but I love shop talk! :P
>
> My opinions (having been on vacation for most of this thread) are
> roughly:
>
> 1. For patches generated by deterministic tools (e.g. sed/cocinelle),
> please include the source code so that anyone reading the patch can
> check the reproducibility of that patch.  But that can be free-form
> in the commit message:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/157343508488.1945685.9867882880040545380.stgit@magnolia/
>
> 2. For nondeterministic machine assistance, I like the idea of asking
> patch submitters to note which part(s) of the patch had machine
> assistance applied.  I don't care all that much about the technology
> used (e.g. LLM, or Eliza, or whatever).  Something like:
>
> Assisted-by: LLM # commit message
> Assisted-by: LLM # finding bugs in the original commit
>
> I don't care to give free advertising to any specific LLM-pusher, nor
> do I care to give the whole *industry* any free publicity.  They can
> spend their own leveraged money on advertising.
>
> Mecha-assistance-done-by: finding bugs in the original commit
>
> or maybe just
>
> MAD: finding bugs in the original commit
>
> :P
>
> 3. I grade *all* the trailers that submitters attach to patches!  And
> how well they engage me on my weird followup questions!  Both help me to
> construct a conscientiousness vibe, which is how I decide how much
> effort to put into making a response.  Do you allege that your patch
> fixes a bug but fail to cc stable?  Do you post obviously LLM generated
> content but leave out an Assisted-by tag?  Do you habitually drop off
> the list for long periods of time?  Decline to run /any/ QA on your
> patches at all?  Not gonna waste my time.
>
> OTOH, I also look for *good* behavior: cc'ing stable, responding to
> questions with a day or two, kvetching on fstests@ about the horridness
> of bash scripts?  I find that endearing. ;)
>
> --D
>
> > Anyway I'll leave it up to you!
> >
> > Thanks, Lorenzo
> >

I love all of this, no notes :)

Cheers, Lorenzo