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

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

[Andrew Jones]

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!)

Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev>
---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index e858261c95a8..653bec1f6ea5 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -626,6 +626,7 @@ our $signature_tags = qr{(?xi:
 	Reviewed-by:|
 	Reported-by:|
 	Suggested-by:|
+	Assisted-by:|
 	To:|
 	Cc:
 )};
@@ -3073,6 +3074,15 @@ sub process {
 				}
 			}
 
+			# Assisted-by uses AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION format, not email
+			if ($sign_off =~ /^Assisted-by:/i) {
+				if ($email !~ /^\S+:\S+/) {
+					WARN("BAD_SIGN_OFF",
+					     "Assisted-by expects 'AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION [TOOL1] [TOOL2]' format\n" . $herecurr);
+				}
+				next;
+			}
+
 			my ($email_name, $name_comment, $email_address, $comment) = parse_email($email);
 			my $suggested_email = format_email(($email_name, $name_comment, $email_address, $comment));
 			if ($suggested_email eq "") {
-- 
2.43.0

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

[Paolo Bonzini]

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.

Paolo

>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev>
> ---
>  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> index e858261c95a8..653bec1f6ea5 100755
> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> @@ -626,6 +626,7 @@ our $signature_tags = qr{(?xi:
>         Reviewed-by:|
>         Reported-by:|
>         Suggested-by:|
> +       Assisted-by:|
>         To:|
>         Cc:
>  )};
> @@ -3073,6 +3074,15 @@ sub process {
>                                 }
>                         }
>
> +                       # Assisted-by uses AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION format, not email
> +                       if ($sign_off =~ /^Assisted-by:/i) {
> +                               if ($email !~ /^\S+:\S+/) {
> +                                       WARN("BAD_SIGN_OFF",
> +                                            "Assisted-by expects 'AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION [TOOL1] [TOOL2]' format\n" . $herecurr);
> +                               }
> +                               next;
> +                       }
> +
>                         my ($email_name, $name_comment, $email_address, $comment) = parse_email($email);
>                         my $suggested_email = format_email(($email_name, $name_comment, $email_address, $comment));
>                         if ($suggested_email eq "") {
> --
> 2.43.0
>

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

[Andrew Jones]

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.

Thanks,
drew

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

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

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.

Anyway my 2 cents.

Regards,

Phil.

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

[Andrew Jones]

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.
>

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.

[1] https://patchew.org/QEMU/20260528073412.551117-1-pbonzini@redhat.com/

Thanks,
drew

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

[Thomas Huth]

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.
>>
> 
> 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.

  Thomas

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

[Andrew Jones]

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.
> > > 
> > 
> > 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.

Thanks,
drew

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

[Sean Christopherson]

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