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 D449A47F2EE; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 09:38:47 +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=1782985129; cv=none; b=QUPt5Ue1S53yYI6onS4pcmU0NxtRPsqba2mtT+xUXNg0nG5f9Ym3h1N1g6b7xdMpQvaWZRu8hnn3XsWI5rCi0BXwVqtIGFrT1fN1qTWk5CM/rjOIiJq09WiGTAezizMNHRGYMSR8Z4Ztep9IbFrBZjtKpcM9UsX/YIRGB4qQkoE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782985129; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wnMx/Sh938zhMHMISCcZ7pZTpsx1OdGkIPpkEcdw4zs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=DwqfS16fu0jpAzoyRNOllmEHFGwaXJS+GU13AiBIdt2+zJ7bq0B6MJFSE1ksNl6hvLvKOocWvatVODf2DLrV3oL+SAUXTovnnHViff0NxzNHEbLlTC1mnQetxsxP+VY6gMNw/69YianNtvqhPLp6V0582WKrCjxR08H9hWIlRg8= 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=upQFpz2e; 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="upQFpz2e" 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 81C128CB; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 11:38:00 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1782985080; bh=wnMx/Sh938zhMHMISCcZ7pZTpsx1OdGkIPpkEcdw4zs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=upQFpz2eloomqLzv74b7/9X+e6nqHHsQaXe9plX9Snhx4dEyPhULpUr/sDOW8B7cd vWZ1DQxP8fD2FBMIz1B+roJdaaWxGORtL1kmGJ6c04pVT5HqrT5XfoqgR23FJz7bEU zKWQmwReDONyWFaVjsPWAzsh9chv4DZi9mXsBC3E= Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 12:38:44 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" Cc: Jori Koolstra , Christian Brauner , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Jens Axboe , David Hildenbrand , Jeff Layton , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Lorenzo Stoakes Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution Message-ID: <20260702093844.GA3491311@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260701-work-coding-assistants-v1-1-a20a94d1d606@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: On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 10:44:34AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: > On 7/2/26 10:12, Jori Koolstra wrote: > > Ah, I still reigniting this discussion again :) > > > > What about a combination of what David and Jeff say? The whole point > > seems to me that the salient information is not that an LLM was used (or > > are we going to tag Sashiko as well or any other LLM-based code review > > tool?), but what is was used to do. This information may be relevant for > > how the review is approached. The latter should perhaps only be in the > > cover letter and then we can drop the assisted-by tags altogether. > > > > The question about enforcement remains. > > It's not possible to enforce it. People can deny it if the tag is missing > and you confront them and even though the submission has many signs of being > obviously LLM, there is no definite proof. We've seen (likely, as there's no > proof!) that happen in mm. > > Such situation then penalizes those who disclose so obviously they won't. I think there's also a penality for those who don't disclose when they're told they should: it will lower trust. Kernel development is largely based on a trust model. If a contributor decides to adopt a deceiptful behaviour, they can expect maintainers to raise the bar for accepting patches, when not rejecting them outright. I can't quantifying which of the penalities will be higher, but I hope (call me naive if you wish) that the vast majority of contributurs who *know* we require disclosure to abide by that rule, even if it incurs a penalty. After all, proponents for LLM usage claim such performance improvements that a small penalty during review can't be that bad, right ? :-) > We > should drop the tag and instead think how we can empower maintainers to be > able to use their own judgment and deprioritize dealing with what they > perceive as LLM slop, without fearing consequences of not being properly > responsible etc, and not rely on any non-enforceable tags for that. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart