Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution

["Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 04:10:07PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 03:29:44PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > On 7/7/26 11:55, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > LGTM! Do you want to send that then? People can comment on the actual path then
> > > (probably worth cc'ing everybody here on that also).
> >
> > Let's first gather some more thoughts on the rough direction before spinning of
> > yet another discussion. :)
> 
> I'm suggesting sending a simple, uncontroversial, change to get movement rather
> than continue this never-ending talking shop :)

Oh but I love shop talk! :P

My opinions (having been on vacation for most of this thread) are
roughly:

1. For patches generated by deterministic tools (e.g. sed/cocinelle),
please include the source code so that anyone reading the patch can
check the reproducibility of that patch.  But that can be free-form
in the commit message:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/157343508488.1945685.9867882880040545380.stgit@magnolia/

2. For nondeterministic machine assistance, I like the idea of asking
patch submitters to note which part(s) of the patch had machine
assistance applied.  I don't care all that much about the technology
used (e.g. LLM, or Eliza, or whatever).  Something like:

Assisted-by: LLM # commit message
Assisted-by: LLM # finding bugs in the original commit

I don't care to give free advertising to any specific LLM-pusher, nor
do I care to give the whole *industry* any free publicity.  They can
spend their own leveraged money on advertising.

Mecha-assistance-done-by: finding bugs in the original commit

or maybe just

MAD: finding bugs in the original commit

:P

3. I grade *all* the trailers that submitters attach to patches!  And
how well they engage me on my weird followup questions!  Both help me to
construct a conscientiousness vibe, which is how I decide how much
effort to put into making a response.  Do you allege that your patch
fixes a bug but fail to cc stable?  Do you post obviously LLM generated
content but leave out an Assisted-by tag?  Do you habitually drop off
the list for long periods of time?  Decline to run /any/ QA on your
patches at all?  Not gonna waste my time.

OTOH, I also look for *good* behavior: cc'ing stable, responding to
questions with a day or two, kvetching on fstests@ about the horridness
of bash scripts?  I find that endearing. ;)

--D

> Anyway I'll leave it up to you!
> 
> Thanks, Lorenzo
>