From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (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 A47C0433E99; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:13:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783008817; cv=none; b=exbt1KWzJ2jAUGllDRf35O7RqVo545aO9VN/806jYnjaLJWUB4L/+Eu57wd0v3Iu2K+dsRkwzc33K8rgVdWGT//e9Qe1aGpiq0sQlIMO02U/OQ8re4QRLimV83/tZj6zwfoeLRHl+6MlTT0ftO2tYSB2akr6wqwkyC7K55Bo7cs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783008817; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nJma6FnpbB6k+J8WgqR/an6+GZA0c8hPme47QWSCWBY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=JhAKaN8VprDEtEM3DaGOmJQ8/rcahPmVffWPiHDvduwMUF6UrnOnz2qw5QF1BCu/VDz/fTskG/9VtARy7MMhA6YIp52xssWWoh9XeH6SUkV6yztR1w75KOpHXLjJK0wzsAvzPLpGHbe7snY2rzqVaKcotAArOTzh6JP4Of/eVP0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=NrRQLP12; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="NrRQLP12" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2196D8CB; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 18:12:46 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1783008766; bh=nJma6FnpbB6k+J8WgqR/an6+GZA0c8hPme47QWSCWBY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=NrRQLP12hjdboxoVqUfv3fTZRYLQXZcD5xX/CLcr0WH5OGF+0j5aOcfXFELP9aHgr 9DUJMGzbjk1vDBbAxtwVkPJBSz7udQ37f554k7RzC249SyX+cZcOJcNKoZU+mdqHSy 3sjUzT5OHaQLajAMIzn4h4LfuJUWo25iVmuO3XxA= Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 19:13:30 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Jeff Layton Cc: Greg KH , 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: <20260702161330.GH3534761@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260702-aidoc-v1-1-735572dfb995@kernel.org> <2026070224-unholy-commode-cf45@gregkh> <2114bb79bb5b6e5584a8236de3590e2f4bf0899f.camel@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2114bb79bb5b6e5584a8236de3590e2f4bf0899f.camel@kernel.org> 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. > If we want to collect some sort of structured data like this, it would > be good to have some idea of how it will be used. That might inform the > format and content of what we're collecting. > > > > Given that the data this provides is flawed at best and is being > > > collected for a purpose that isn't clear, let's just kill the > > > requirement for these tags from the kernel at large. > > > > No, please do not do this. It's useful already for many patches in my > > subsystems, and is only going to be used more in the future. > > I should have sent this as an RFC patch, but hopefully everyone is > treating that way anyway. To be clear, I don't have a strong preference > on whether we keep Assisted-by: or not, but I'd like to better > understand the intended uses of it if we do intend to keep it. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart