Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH] checkpatch: add support for Assisted-by tag

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2026, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 09:57:22PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > On 23/06/2026 18.04, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 05:08:07PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > > On 22/6/26 21:00, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 06:43:45PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 6:41 PM Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev> wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Import Linux commit d1db4118489f ("checkpatch: add support for
> > > > > > > Assisted-by tag").
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > (I should have used AI for this, since it'd be fun to include that
> > > > > > > tag on this tag-enabling patch, but sometimes I still do my own
> > > > > > > homework!)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Personally, I don't see the point in providing free advertising to AI
> > > > > > companies, so if I had to choose I would do "WARN(...) if ($sign_off
> > > > > > =~ /^Assisted-by:/i)". It's more important to know what AI was used
> > > > > > *for*, than what AI was used period.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > But I won't complain if people want this patch.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The process is now well established over in Linux kernel land and we
> > > > > encourage kvm-unit-tests contributors to follow Linux processes. The
> > > > > motivation for this patch is because I just queued an ARM patch which
> > > > > used the Linux process and it failed checkpatch. I'd rather checkpatch
> > > > > succeed than to have to tell people to remove/modify the tags they're
> > > > > used to using with the kernel.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We can encourage contributors to also add sentences stating how AI
> > > > > assisted when an AI assistance tag is provided in order to capture
> > > > > the "AI used for what" part.
> > > > 
> > > > I tend to agree with Paolo in that I don't see the value added by
> > > > these tags -- except the free advertising --. Besides what provides
> > > > $AGENT_NAME:$MODEL_VERSION is likely irrelevant without the prompt
> > > > used. And even if we try to reproduce we would get a slightly
> > > > different result :) Then by the time the patch is committed the
> > > > information is almost obsolete.

+1

> > > kvm-unit-tests does sit on the boundary of being Linux-like and
> > > QEMU-adjacent. So I can see why the QEMU position[1] might be
> > > considered over the Linux position here. OTOH, I'd rather not
> > > complicate kvm-unit-tests development. I'm also personally not
> > > that against the tags providing free advertising. The tags also
> > > provide stats in the long run which may be used to compute risk
> > > factors and/or evaluate quality of particular LLM designs which
> > > can lead to LLM improvements.
> > FWIW, I think we should follow the kernel here. k-u-t has always used the
> > coding style, header files, scripts, etc. from the kernel, so IMHO we should
> > not diverge here.
> > And I agree with Andrew that the tags could be useful in the long run, e.g.
> > if there is ever a problem with a certain AI model, it's easier for us to
> > find out which commits we might want to have another closer look at.
> >
> 
> I pushed the commit.

Heh, maybe jumped the gun a bit?  FWIW, I agree with Paolo and others, specifying
the exact name+model is little more than advertising.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260701-work-coding-assistants-v1-1-a20a94d1d606@kernel.org