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 72FA03E51DE; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:08:49 +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=1782979734; cv=none; b=kSAdxFwFlOgaNykP8HMzOd94H1DeBSyIKH3ey/YSSgVkub3r966rokrgMQmdghmE9sP3RIRv4d+w9E0FZff4ulBULDy/fHCoBTCwz6kP7u/xulFAeOzMXkzFFSQWWbFOY72SyZS7ReWhR/yw2d0O0X5mul4Uu17s6/rhoj2D4m8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782979734; c=relaxed/simple; bh=c1k3M6iHOUB3h5EFXN8LOj/croNgm92w04O8kuYt4eM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dBHC2bXuKQeqbSHmCoCk1MHcO0SYiipCm94zvqKqB5EUP4xCdLEZbKwvwRprqRDyYqb+IOZ6hsDlpBPQhAnhdvFo6OCLPOOVYZ2/4FPrR94zyud2Us1QD7+vDREC4D8X1RnROOoW6ktTJ2akXnKx9rGiPo7wlRQUSsqs4/UyVP8= 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=aM2chEHQ; 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="aM2chEHQ" 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 931093A2; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 10:07:56 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1782979676; bh=c1k3M6iHOUB3h5EFXN8LOj/croNgm92w04O8kuYt4eM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=aM2chEHQPj3sxLc7yKrtsij9xTeRKVrwOTkVrNYRFMCV2A9xqAWiJVR2hMaFqWOPu XraaabnHAfupKQpYE33k3gbLAuVlmKDP7e54GGYv6HhJW4VTqy5uxvSpmx3UZwBaBZ SJAfkRODEMA1202tW4CaD8p7Ch8AAgy9UPCQLaUk= Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 11:08:40 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Christian Brauner Cc: "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: <20260702080840.GG3433808@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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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: <20260702-seekrank-stilrichtung-mitentscheiden-69a64ee097ec@brauner> 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). [1] https://www.kubernetes.dev/docs/guide/pull-requests/#ai-guidance [2] https://lwn.net/Articles/1080144/ [3] https://kubernetes.io/blog/2026/06/26/open-source-maintainership-in-the-age-of-ai/ > > I thought we ask for that in some document, but couldn't immediately find it > > (and nobody does that). -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart