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 56CEA349CF2; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:50:27 +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=1783011028; cv=none; b=XD/KvlQg2/nrW/xPu3dh0YOI48U9ynyVPtnZaoAcDh8GKld1acwZfXbETBa5LzfHUQgjb/2/HteaonV+ZA427zD62gqCrTgjdD/il5sblTtP3nWvPA3swyl6tneoYoKtkzxAv1w/tUcGC9p1nOWwwkggJG+UmzIia9pyzkbnKuY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783011028; c=relaxed/simple; bh=h4chzH7MM2I+Nv1bVeEEsP5ZVrAG/C782EzN9I6JUxY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=kSGF7wgm9a/BAKrwAStE8/ERgik4RBpkd9wgFnpcixa3BeWTRH0fD20y27tmpo8mBYu3SUGe8VbvYhKF7rtNEBx8trNImmGHX2aAEVSEkucGQoqVklB6PI49CBKpRCf4WB9nq6zjTq/e1TQzdB2dgTZZlPZqytOI0p5aVjGI05Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Pj+S+1n+; 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="Pj+S+1n+" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 672F81F000E9; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:50:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783011027; bh=VxwP5sbJnHA5aX0cWSiGCuHUNdENo3EBGO3dln8kb20=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=Pj+S+1n+cHOxdLDHnr/zFJ11PPk5uiN9qE6D6DEJsmOuRRZ0Ucv2vdt46rWtzd4/S 5eSlxBHqzXguL3/MIE4TpCNzEAXaWv2cNmXIzmS5ZyHzKCzTAvX+TDD4hPrVdfwDBm epj6IKDP7iANNPhNg9Vcy50nuzo2MwqkwqYwflq688M6c1kinTB8HZ8GT+zCrJYEtu o1vsun5lCe50FNf2Z9oRQ5bDVHY/LjBchQgfYWKVsPwgnyY3P0QVz5Ge42tCY2qpc2 iMBcbTReE2KgvOJs9t05kiwc/6dAIitF+MEvlau4g1i3SUlEEOdM5RVV17F/ELoDVi b0OCOcAljsj5Q== Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 17:50:15 +0100 From: Lorenzo Stoakes To: Jeff Layton Cc: Greg KH , Laurent Pinchart , 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 , 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: 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> <16c507cea8f2873766e1de586d9a0d73234a3038.camel@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: <16c507cea8f2873766e1de586d9a0d73234a3038.camel@kernel.org> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 12:48:22PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Thu, 2026-07-02 at 18:19 +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. > > > > > > Do we need a tag for this though? > > This seems like the kind of information that we would always require in > the cover letter of a series (or the little place in an individual > patch for comments that don't get merged). That would also allow you to > convey a lot more nuance about how it was used. > > ISTM asking people to disclose LLM usage in a cover letter would give > everyone what they want: Information about whether and possibly how an > LLM was used, and it also wouldn't clutter up the changelogs with these > tags. It's much much clearer and easier to just have a standardised tag for that. You can see that (and grep for that) immediately, vague paragraphs not so much. > -- > Jeff Layton Thanks, Lroenzo