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 36B47318EDC; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:32:20 +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=1783009941; cv=none; b=po+wqU0Xlwn49kWxDzWpumjOvO78/oR69oOOQzci5KhWlWrAX2YEzmms3eEfs4bu+vnOLyZqpXmxRXeFICtuOQ4nzjdQw+KqxtM/DPQwFJjTzPx16Oap0w0TCDQSWIaVfLIrJhZfLfwvxthmpGuTHz3Hv/7HHFVMb/RGhj0wAmQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783009941; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fjj4Z6jD6dncrwYufqoyz44rJobrhzKlnGSRWYgfv2c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=T1r6Wc3YTHB2DnDaulVm2qxvEBQrKJi7CB5ix8iRFc8fF7AgA9vs3sSAkZp7Xj2VqrBoo3AqBJHrJLufjVI1RDnlorbB+fajrqRDoZp7hYupJib53Yei4XjP8aiQ6j+dYphmr1FsBMPPWo7ln95oacPmi/9C9ywzgZBmVCjDbLY= 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=KAw1N2so; 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="KAw1N2so" 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 9F4088CB; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 18:31:31 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1783009891; bh=fjj4Z6jD6dncrwYufqoyz44rJobrhzKlnGSRWYgfv2c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KAw1N2solbSlbRkyLcQrDS1HRgG6hrSmt5mynYc3hVv/+vaet+lxx9tW882OjFAxW zqjKxfdIXc+a5dkSejBMPL/M8uwAjNWVQgJsEIw3iPiJlRpe/x1cnEyelWW4/CQfcI AmCH5HOu0SvyzDrunMYwe48PazY+KBNuefv8sSvc= Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 19:32:15 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Greg KH Cc: Jeff Layton , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Justin Stitt , Lorenzo Stoakes , 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: <20260702163215.GC3559965@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> 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> 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: <2026070227-payroll-eradicate-8f66@gregkh> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 06:19:15PM +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. > > So it needs to stay please. There's the free advertising issue we still need to address. Would the proposed "Assisted-by: LLM" tag to replace product names be an acceptable option for you ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart