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 9D4C83382DA; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:22:01 +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=1783009322; cv=none; b=MgezYMAxLDVsJ0aj5jkdM2Bn61qgHd2fdMutGZvG2t+AJE5KsNg+bnBigOWsg4x4J6IxyJmiT7LAdN3fDBX4p5pz1rXNEiQdCUUoPUQleBwIB3XQGLVOJHteVwtIAUMI44HwCI6sIwuUB44NHG0GOl5LHVPvJewdT/P0WYAjz68= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783009322; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OsSDOQIrgtchdtrVgSK3nnizozNNXFaJwSyg5VreD7k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XFc9K2BUtAhp/r1dSSwlXxJKdHX1HbOYEskJpdloX1GrKLZxamrleDpsZ6zANPdfIN/qkxcsSOCII1wGDt7oNfwVPFu6A0yfhG2iD5OetQrrmQtlE8saxv0VGpyiEnHrH6B9JvAxrU+7Y0auh6GBy8HX+5+t237SulYn61/jrIo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=zApc09pG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="zApc09pG" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE3631F000E9; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:22:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1783009321; bh=kK4vBztoIykW9+OGgKvTHApPTBMrfjJGiJlwKiL6kOg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=zApc09pGa6ijstV9hQYvpSJDrSI7IbslYravwN/5RkJD9XwRhzlLk6ASUxpxWJiVk LopIiO17izoTFkYfkjliqyajJ+myI0ZHqR+smtB9wWBXxKHw2x7gPN6wezCbqw71n6 Mzds3mfibgDnSK86ov2VKFNRcytYY4IKSAGtLJns= Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 18:19:15 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Laurent Pinchart 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: <2026070227-payroll-eradicate-8f66@gregkh> References: <20260702-aidoc-v1-1-735572dfb995@kernel.org> <2026070224-unholy-commode-cf45@gregkh> <2114bb79bb5b6e5584a8236de3590e2f4bf0899f.camel@kernel.org> <20260702161330.GH3534761@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260702161330.GH3534761@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> 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. thanks, greg k-h