From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 92CCE39098E for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 16:57:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773334647; cv=none; b=dK3PIfjx72a45MfyplKDrPR/EN1gHs2xOmudCi9SWCrTvPUzWXhtAq06l/6evK13qPeLpcVXtbHrt4KvfJ+sYOqPsDPsvij9N9YNDSAy2+UgkVQqgI8lqwxNjou00MA59gSA8S/VYApCYeGYIVxQWdLqCPJdUep1kfWwORu1Ycw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773334647; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mDH8K0OfdtyU2zaKMaRh2jP/dL8Vhw9JQ82axPhvDlg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ARZJGx03UzNSE7Epd1lByZeNtzW2bJW8a/c1gguERgcs7wpt9A0SKj15+//3xqHhnGr882SElQBpPuSU0CEBVyofd/dDYJMP/M3NPS2torj+fQAlEDULw4xK0aThYiA5g04zi3mL827efkX1nHWLAjlGtMI6TCcEkGwfAFz+5Dw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=aSZUZxLP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="aSZUZxLP" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06761C4CEF7; Thu, 12 Mar 2026 16:57:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1773334647; bh=mDH8K0OfdtyU2zaKMaRh2jP/dL8Vhw9JQ82axPhvDlg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=aSZUZxLPqjP7b3HniC8uWl2o5Q4dOrDcEgiGRYAW4RFX766wv3oyWsQf8U69QjXFg BEWRA6POab1/krp6NIUdg5qZmTyGNdHI/O6Q+psQAh6YjhCrlXzL7l+AwAVCZc/F3h G/RBXfYhXBDwF+DjgNp9jqA0vgJeH2H9Vi4+1MXe3KH7T5/AnEodd2d2VHg9RoU7SJ cY6T3aTleCqCqmDNutIMJ5f6GKByPxLsRebi+YgIpzMabFPXt6BwNMjHwBmNavNLzo eNH+Sv0CaggRHRFDXd39OpbyaPw+l0Qnix6CavIZgyUoeMzTfK9t7qOrQK0kSNjvaO rkryulC4mh2Mw== Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 12:57:25 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Theodore Tso Cc: Linux Kernel Developers List , Jonathan Corbet Subject: Re: How should we handle using AI for reviewing commits? Message-ID: References: <20260312164509.GB4689@macsyma-wired.lan> 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; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260312164509.GB4689@macsyma-wired.lan> On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 12:45:09PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: >We recently used an AI review bot while applying an LTS backport to an >internal kernel tree at $WORK. While doing the review, it flagged a >set of concerns which resulted in my creating a patch[1] to address >the issues that it found in the kernel commit. > >[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260310122806.1277631-1-tytso@mit.edu/ > >In this commit there is no LLM generated output in the code, but there >*is* LLM generated output in the commit description, since I quoted >the concerns raised by the LLM. Per the our new coding-assistants >process document[2], "When AI tools contribute to kernel development, >proper attribution helps track the evolving role of AI in the >development process. Contributions should include an Assisted-by tag..." > >[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-assistants.html > >When I was considering whether I should add something like: > >Assisted-by: Gemini:Gemini-3.1-Pro [TOOL] > >There was a couple of things that came to mind. First, should we make >some kind of distintion between exactly how the AI tool assisted in >the development of the commit? There's a big difference between using >an AI assistant to find a potential issue, to an AI assistant which >created new code out of whole cloth, with a spectrum of changes in >between. Given that the stated code was to "track the evolving role >of AI", it occured to me that perhaps we should add some indication >about exactly what was the nature of assistance that was provided. Why not use Reported-by for these? We already use it for tools (like syzbot), so this would just be a natural extension. Reported-by: Gemini:Gemini-3.1-Pro >The second observation that I had was that example set of tools for >[TOOL] was "specialized analysis tools": coccinelle, sparse, smatch, >clang-tidy. I assume the intent was if an AI bot started using tools >like sparse, coccinelle, as an agent?w Yup, both that as well as just space to list additional tools that the human used too without adding multiple Assisted-by: lines. >If there is a set of LLM prompts which has a name, would that also be >appropriate for TOOL? Chris Mason's repo has a fairly non-descriptive >name, "review-prompts", but in the future when companies start making >their internal review prompts public, some of them may have more >evocative names that might be more unique and more marketing friendly. :-) Something like: Reported-by: Gemini:Gemini-3.1-Pro # https://example.com/my-magical-prompt ? -- Thanks, Sasha