Re: [PATCH RFC] coding-assistants: simplify attribution

["David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>]

On 7/2/26 10:10, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 09:46:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 7/2/26 09:27, Christian Brauner wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

haha, fair enough. I was focusing on the technical aspect.

-- 
Cheers,

David