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 1834941D4E7; Tue, 7 Jul 2026 17:10:39 +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=1783444241; cv=none; b=Ewi/Z/T6JwJZWkMgnFVslfOejq+UYCb8rS6c/5TwyWb4NlAwv/2zVEQY4I3WyweU2QxP7NHmgxKrONzknF4D0wgwAdPmwJhr9rJViL3j3EbOcRmbqQVgx9FDcKbrX2Jmef/e5gj16EkWvqgybIlYPHB2iS04+KUEEES3WghmDFo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783444241; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MsZPCRJyB0JsnW/BuVNvePyfU/ylFqdqIDzIYQfd0UY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=TrqQI7Je9qD8EvVSCZwiCjh4IVD38+PJEYGzb1E+vMTutIcFsR/Y3l+y/x3AMSqND/C3DZiRNiijcwKp5qyp5CBn4n6gsSA4AuJtuNztmzh4RfxOTYzonj/2pC0dJbvxKyqVfln+fElphZYWV+MSC2NItY+fnb3G7fAGSBbKsF8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=HaMkQw2D; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="HaMkQw2D" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 9A9341F000E9; Tue, 7 Jul 2026 17:10:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783444239; bh=HK8uVml06w+bKqyoUyeZfRVnCoDLnntwZGc5/bUtpWI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=HaMkQw2DkD0kV1mnERz9lq7oIX+of4QlpbKaKeDh+ZUxNHob2OnzUxEgoTW6bc1NW Q+uCTzbBnPZmpEfUAPAUVCHQtY0G184u5NLDns2PczjTA3C4WIMU7ETPcQOlxzgyfQ BJhD/hIqOHIBJCkKXGD8UfBoUNo1SQRu8U8lwLHt5CHIqBjT5VHiJVM7Cy6n/aDNKu R1ofaFmEfBp6ZO10ZZiLidelsEWU22CRsTgsCpzqL7Z6Fivjtq44UpQ5AJj5h75CZS DukMGZDgsK19lFVuQbKzBVOIAfNuA3PiXKyLjVK7XxlkW7lBWPAYuspZ6nS7XuM8AM 3PXPInXLkj0Uw== Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 10:10:39 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" , Laurent Pinchart , Boris Burkov , Jeff Layton , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Justin Stitt , Carlos Maiolino , Jakub Kicinski , Jori Koolstra , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Brian Foster , Christoph Hellwig , David Disseldorp , Mark Brown , Jani Nikula , Jens Axboe , 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: <20260707171039.GD9368@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20260702211740.GA639365@zen.localdomain> <3f447113-4407-471f-878f-e6d6edafee71@kernel.org> <20260703163251.GB3734786@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> <0ba6bf66-e48f-40df-a953-503d317b3dbe@kernel.org> <5ccbb28a-171e-40c1-9a6b-9ac7b6b7777d@kernel.org> 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: 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 >