From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 B496B39A061; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 13:48:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783000110; cv=none; b=igEq3VrdTPI+py071x4wlx7UZd9GAvoGd7pKTh+cg+WLQwHwwv/Np4gDJcRnWdAYdCVMkSP2zxQfKetWOwkxOlocMH4aUjI9Edv0OezFod06RrgY0EFsAd4pD0KerWsg0bckL1y835heVv+IRhx4WxDYrsjWd1CZvmIb8Qs321o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783000110; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dqqpp7uaAdfEV3uK9cMfY/51nmJZx7dAmoFtCGz2BR0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=qX0+eH0Nvs2JbYNq3d3/ZgXte/9O9qUb0trtKHCdI1/3ZbcnaJqrgTJmnUlkoohh6zhJK9rpZS9G16IDAQ/0nE0a2R9TcREm/V6Bc6tE1zeDbigoG9yII05LRh6irp25VgeiU/B6fjsKQvmstjzGiv+qJB5JFIY5MDuHwCetKr8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Led6ngck; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Led6ngck" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA5DF1F000E9; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 13:48:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783000109; bh=5edkezs0iCJmH/HKE3nryOc04Q0ct7qllEIACvxzhNU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=Led6ngckWuJgVSkjM4rEuRw2jAipSfnUEfpKeAnM2OSmsRuq+eubb8AnmLnNmJ2SQ oWNF/D8t2UNUj8mqPdQfie3+exoyr1MCnK9df/dq7kjd3ya59Vpt/4keNoHqqjUxsu B0aiO6w3uRVIMQ7n5EUN5zW+iW4yBr6uXIkfLqbzizkwkbAdK11ypRca6a9W44dFc2 Rp04vbidgiRIuhk8bVs0sCrlvdjNeds6SgoVBjeTyG6X0/WOHYGtgaWHeFsuKqIHie jn/8QLXrVHW/7mOTZ8EhMGa4h+P6k/Wgq+1HGSYJU/agGyo4URcyQHcUtqaSEEuEpj KGvFRlKYXcCkQ== Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 15:48:24 +0200 From: Carlos Maiolino To: Christian Brauner Cc: Laurent Pinchart , "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" , 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution Message-ID: References: <20260701-work-coding-assistants-v1-1-a20a94d1d606@kernel.org> <5e7b9d23-4291-48fb-bdc6-47db82d33c80@kernel.org> <20260702-seekrank-stilrichtung-mitentscheiden-69a64ee097ec@brauner> <20260702080840.GG3433808@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <20260702-bahnen-ertappen-verspannungen-0eaaf1e3f5af@brauner> 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: <20260702-bahnen-ertappen-verspannungen-0eaaf1e3f5af@brauner> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 10:28:13AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On 2026-07-02 11:08 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 09:27:37AM +0200, 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 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. > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > 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. > > > > Food for thought, the Kubernetes project has published a disclosure > > policy ([1], reported by LWN.net at [2], with a blog post explaininig it > > at [3]). Quoting LWN.net, > > > > "Of note, the project requires disclosure when AI tools have been used > > to assist in the creation of a contribution but forbids the use of > > listing AI as a co-author or including "assisted-by" or "co-developed" > > trailers to attribute work to an LLM tool." > > > > I personally don't see a lot of value in the Assisted-by trailer, but I > > would like the submitter to include the information in a place that > > doesn't end up in the git commit history (cover letter or below the --- > > line). > > Fwiw, way before k8s I had systemd adopt the following policy: > > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/main/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md#policy-on-the-use-of-large-language-models-llms-and-ai-tooling > > We expect everyone contributing to systemd to fully own their > contribution, be able to reason about it, be able to explain why things > were done a particular way and act as the full owner of that code. AI > tools are treated the same as traditional tooling like sed, awk or > coccinelle. > > For the purpose of this project, AI tools CANNOT be treated as author, > co-author or be credited in any way that would suggest any ownership > over the contribution. > > The contributor should have done all the thinking, planning and > understanding of the changes needed to resolve an issue or implement a > new feature prior to using automated tooling to perform the grunt work. > > Unguided use of those tools or the inability to prove understanding of > the code contributed will result in a loss of trust in that contributor > by project maintainers which can then lead to exclusion from any further > contribution to the project. > > As with any other submissions, authors are responsible for doing due > diligence and ensuring their submissions are compatible with the > project's license as documented in LICENSES/README.md. > > This sounds very reasonable to me.