From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 43C502E54B6; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:10:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782979815; cv=none; b=NR/dkO0BpVyze9vz7GDSMu86CEVJ8qZuNAEyvQZz3/nPpWomX1BjFGsTkBOuo7Q0zz3lHr3Quk0hThgmYAIjB1M+Gkv4QLz5sfPxwiubdaIuC1EctopEXLdhyqmFDEmSUJKssrKvkplwUrLl445a7ansALQaUyRMZIX4evifm3U= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782979815; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jWqGOLYEwcxUSE4GytNyglSLHUxQeuh8bagE+ikcKE0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nAgGPQHhpTVmrjPaP/6o65inM60d0H+LZGqfu3xheDsWWvlTqGZsd6SRY2WMXs4w4pgSfrGJ+8fPDILjHqRppwyc4LANQECRCTo6fWwAQw+Ccjtm/ZItBwAFuBStFndE/t+4kA5picrScQjb6629U50JIlfROEOV0hYFtUIKqkA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=kaNN1ScB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="kaNN1ScB" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C005C3A2; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 10:09:26 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1782979767; bh=jWqGOLYEwcxUSE4GytNyglSLHUxQeuh8bagE+ikcKE0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kaNN1ScBwDRNFudteGM8zlX4A7pn88HH5iSTMRw9gf6P3UZA7/YSV04THKWGhIGK/ gLd/ARFMrnqSbvfhfRLbkVvipwUMLd+fL26FG3W/7TwAUJe5geYP2siirIQS1MPFQD H9WxA3ZF/iPDgkUpF7E0Zw/vqY+P+Z1PoNu3EeqM= Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 11:10:11 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" Cc: Christian Brauner , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Jens Axboe , Jeff Layton , Vlastimil Babka , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution Message-ID: <20260702081011.GH3433808@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260701-work-coding-assistants-v1-1-a20a94d1d606@kernel.org> <5e7b9d23-4291-48fb-bdc6-47db82d33c80@kernel.org> <20260702-seekrank-stilrichtung-mitentscheiden-69a64ee097ec@brauner> <1f29f48d-b9ff-4de2-a392-dc05781728be@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1f29f48d-b9ff-4de2-a392-dc05781728be@kernel.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 09:46:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 7/2/26 09:27, Christian Brauner wrote: > >> What would be much more relevant to know is to which degree LLMs were used. > >> > >> Assisted-by: LLM # translate commit message > >> Assisted-by: LLM # generate some test cases > >> Assisted-by: LLM # cleanup logic > >> Assisted-by: LLM # everything and I have no clue what any in here does > > > > I think we should just drop any attribution as a general kernel-wide > > rule and let subsystems require them as needed. Then you can have all > > the complexity in mm for this that you think is needed for your > > workflow to function. This is precisely what the subsystem profiles are > > for. So maybe just add: > > > > Documentation/process/maintainer-mm.rst > > > > alongside > > > > Documentation/process/maintainer-{tip,netdev,x86}.rst > > > > and lay down the rules that you require for LLM based submissions in > > whatever detail you need. > > I'm not really sure if having (more?) subsystem-specific tags is the way to go. > (below) > > So either we find a very simple, kernel-wide rule for such tags, or we drop them > entirely. > > > > > I don't see how this additional commentary you want would ever be > > enforced consistently across the kernel or who would even enforce it. I > > don't need more beaurocracy to chase after people in my subsystems tbh. > > That's certainly a good thing to discuss. (below) > > > > > The other thing is that I think this Assisted-by annotation is just > > noise in the changelog. If you want to know in detail what an LLM was > > used for when generating the patch it's mostly a signal for how > > "intense" of a review this will get afaict (already questionable imho > > but sure that's just something to disagree on). > > I'd be happy to just have such information in the cover letter. Without any > tags. Having subsystem-specific rules on the disclosure on that might be more > reasonable. > > I agree on the "enforce" aspect. It's impossible, but it's still easy to catch > people using AI irresponsibly today ... and that's what we care about. Not > people that know what they are doing using AI responsibly. I have to reply to the "responsible" part: there's no possible ethical use of generative AI in FOSS development today. > > If the information is mostly useful during review then I still would > > question why it has to end up in our git logs. It's completely > > irrelevant information imho. > > Fully agreed. In the tree it's irrelevant. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart