From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from flow-b8-smtp.messagingengine.com (flow-b8-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.143]) (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 D9DF17081A; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 21:19:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.143 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783027151; cv=none; b=r0swLnZ+bGz9iRyTIzvOuxq9OIb6IocA3Fx2prGCfFRqvJT9T6Sg+Ztswpxy1e6u7vY+1xdKmCntV87ISc69tUWyL90oUHCl0/BAkwBKgiD9RziIC1fAvxbIuzlJC7vWEC6esDZwZMuBSiSBjUh2r/J1viqptxaE9sGhuVDArZQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783027151; c=relaxed/simple; bh=aqNVV0HCR43fW0eY92WLuQTYh9Su8zsMr5WaEtRuQgc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=k6gOqgrl7S3L+gFugOFpKjWOk8JIwT/bDeIEzrMpjihsnBoGZIaS9rtLb921gM0KFUgtakxHqGNJxls4HXwoN6Jqee2vVa8BNuDkyYt2uz2BF20ZxySYKsUDp/h4Ut0Z09hJpZitngxSkJ534LDCYJokhXKg+odNGH0ZIwVuO2k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=bur.io; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bur.io; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bur.io header.i=@bur.io header.b=XwmrH1rA; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=Vt1sKQx0; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.143 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=bur.io Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bur.io Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bur.io header.i=@bur.io header.b="XwmrH1rA"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="Vt1sKQx0" Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailflow.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EFF13004F5; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 17:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-04 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 02 Jul 2026 17:19:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bur.io; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1783027148; x=1783034348; bh=qzhRIeK/Ek oxd3iE3sNHSfh7hFaqvZqLxYp4BwVTxdU=; b=XwmrH1rAWZgCHH83a1ztriwujh dazqGyUt65PIObvAkfZnPWjkiV3A5mFNkn8gQNFu8NxBUeM16WmcMjUwKVs717CA 9gHSHvDPVnB5yXMhPYWsH5U2qHOe3l9H6/UH74lVADDbc1e3hNaScnLyKOLG2+Mz E9xbLjNbnUSVpGxXhtX/MJ2b7w+lIET2Ut6zONx1WunG0BHHgp//mjWRjyjzAkwX 8MsJ5IHktsAhT4pSg7m3FWAB13oD3ZD5u71h+DLe8Lmo0ovtKActQXm4kGisF7+7 ch2T+ebVyTOKSvaF1bS3bKRo4BoTwyl+3Fri67ezU1yKgInmX1CgROkGckyg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1783027148; x=1783034348; bh=qzhRIeK/Ekoxd3iE3sNHSfh7hFaqvZqLxYp 4BwVTxdU=; b=Vt1sKQx0zje/JOkfjYin0hhT7Pjbpfyglc5u6UzFaTo+vNpOKbJ w1MotkBt6OKTbRGgupYu330TaNJatnY1FcTElhikJ9j8FuofJztx65xGI8kirffc hwML0iDtKQ26a1V7/jOKyIlHvGBL8UlowoOBarLMlw9emSgKl/tq3LjJfHPulZbo 04H1hqCbC6zDIAr6teZWLAtjKEQNOfWlSiAPZxAXUsNy0cf8FFUq12UDzYpcXkbk eLdK2AH5d6QBFsSu94lyjiOZ/cfwFpwQeQ/rEP4pJzeJ1Re9ia6lTEtCICSkG1Ax dpmHAFr9lHr0y6wRV51P41o7EnK8d0jJNag== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTF1eCpXYCUVd3Pqpr3O9LIGq74CQAvS9RGvDCHwPfDhAaXXsYNtoivpHnlIrFH927 2YCz5NqVaCZ6DJCus+e7OARXYNVw08yRE+wZgR2V39XVkkq1rpLp+hnY8WfWo6IARh6R7Q Y2zk03eMgZolaDci/PPwbISduxT1DbWIcJh4HJeiKFwzwFKjzp6Di3TgOmOjmhoEwvNQiH 3YJEi4YVqe5M1kfSalcj0sLU7zAITmK7LlDXlHDFi/gukjETu8ljfhMlkdMTxCGI+2MpE2 4nPyUwDewkCfrv57xonamSAqsUOKx6xXNWZ3a623/BzRH3zaVmWV7viqbLhmQYvyA/LKdE 1UQquPfYVcg0XA+cI3DhFPYNQVtueJsuWx2tZ+0Sx0hvBa2UBmmlbqUF6ssj5flrKFaOI3 pniDj/c8kbaXzG7o+I5B5EMvp2kbpzcy/j6U8/g7PUBsd9CpVzujsC4KRIzLDQgQoUNHgg VZS0jB30TRonPHBC2uP94GC2ZyCJTPaBiETnup6K/prikj/9I+jZ5KKHlDrQN6BHsoIddq N3ECyp/s1HNo8TDoTXCZYCm3v7XmJrCC2FHpmMTNdG86WcF1Rt091v33IO4pKuYXAs0cSh VmlmTX3bQMqqvt4YzYTMwKe6ZtR/uLqMUVPSUO4pprM5jtC8pY3hiyz4iQaw X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i083147f8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 17:19:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 14:17:40 -0700 From: Boris Burkov To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Jeff Layton , Greg KH , Laurent Pinchart , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Justin Stitt , Carlos Maiolino , Jakub Kicinski , Jori Koolstra , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Brian Foster , Christoph Hellwig , David Disseldorp , Mark Brown , Jani Nikula , Jens Axboe , David Hildenbrand , Vlastimil Babka , "Christian Brauner (Amutable)" , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution Message-ID: <20260702211740.GA639365@zen.localdomain> References: <20260702-aidoc-v1-1-735572dfb995@kernel.org> <2026070224-unholy-commode-cf45@gregkh> <2114bb79bb5b6e5584a8236de3590e2f4bf0899f.camel@kernel.org> <20260702161330.GH3534761@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <2026070227-payroll-eradicate-8f66@gregkh> <16c507cea8f2873766e1de586d9a0d73234a3038.camel@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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 05:50:15PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 12:48:22PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Thu, 2026-07-02 at 18:19 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 07:13:30PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 11:57:46AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2026-07-02 at 17:07 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 10:32:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > > > We've had this requirement in place in the Documentation for several > > > > > > > months, but it's becoming clear that the signal to noise ratio from this > > > > > > > is quite low. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1/ It's not universally followed. While many people do try to attribute > > > > > > > the LLMs in good faith, not everyone does for various reasons. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then let's move to get people to follow it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2/ It basically serves as free advertising for proprietary LLM companies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Who cares, make up a name, all I want is the "signal" that someone is > > > > > > using a LLM so that I can review it as-such. And if I think someone is > > > > > > not reporting that, I can ask for them to properly attribute it and if > > > > > > they lie, well, that's on them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3/ It's not clear why we want to collect this info in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > > > We want to know if a LLM is being used. > > > > > > > > > > But why? What do you intend to do with this information? > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean to use it as an indicator that the patch should receive > > > > > "extra" review (or maybe that it should be ignored)? Do you mean to use > > > > > it to generate some sort of statistics at a later time? > > > > > > > > I use the information to decide how to review the patch, and what level > > > > of priority to give it. For that usage I don't need a tag, but I need > > > > the information in some human-readable form at patch submission time. > > > > > > Same here. I don't care about stats, I care about "how do I review this > > > patch" and this gives me that signal that I need if faced with a > > > llm-helped patch. > > > > > > > > > > Do we need a tag for this though? > > > > This seems like the kind of information that we would always require in > > the cover letter of a series (or the little place in an individual > > patch for comments that don't get merged). That would also allow you to > > convey a lot more nuance about how it was used. > > > > ISTM asking people to disclose LLM usage in a cover letter would give > > everyone what they want: Information about whether and possibly how an > > LLM was used, and it also wouldn't clutter up the changelogs with these > > tags. > > It's much much clearer and easier to just have a standardised tag for that. > > You can see that (and grep for that) immediately, vague paragraphs not so much. > At the risk of being pedantic on a point where I think the document is kind of lacking: What level of assistance crosses the bar for an "Assisted-by: LLM" tag? Some sample levels of assistance to illustrate the point: 1. I used an llm to one-shot vibe-code a patch 2. I used an llm to write a patch but carefully reviewed every line 3. I used an llm to explore the design space for a patch but wrote it manually 4. I used an llm to debug or reproduce a kernel issue but then wrote the fix manually after fully understanding the defect 5. I used an llm to review a patch I wrote 6. I used an llm to research some chunk of code while writing a patch 7. I used Google while writing a patch and learned something valuable from the AI overview at the top I personally would 100% use the tag for 1 or 2, and have already done so. I have not been doing it for 3-5, as I think that will basically make every patch llm-assisted to the point of the distinction being meaningless. If we should be doing it for 3-5 (or some subset thereof) then my mistake and I will certainly start doing so. I would hope most people agree 6-7 and similar need no tag. Similar questions abound if you use an llm to help with writing the English text in the patch or emails. I have a feeling that this ambiguity is part of the reason we aren't all agreeing on the value of the tag? Thanks, Boris > > -- > > Jeff Layton > > Thanks, Lroenzo