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 8E70E305E10; Fri, 3 Jul 2026 16:32:56 +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=1783096378; cv=none; b=uERaFn4Ofd7g56j9AsLrHjm4Bmod227PZeFrAAHegPD3fvdmi22NRLbZHkphPwxWE2M2Ee1g9nels5BoW3FcIW3vAs+mdcdbPirOTv2baax0IyxgBelXPFVOp90QLOxAz75RuHWJVKM0AMky8Eh9JrxiFOEACVJnFJDOK+bZvaY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783096378; c=relaxed/simple; bh=i6TVWHWqQQudxIMe0+xzj3AFPAlFnTOKf5VgUwJrtu8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KR19RlHmyjnLD5pBLHOuYRfrghQTAE+IMqqMsyaUy/qWfToBiSwjqt1jO4gvGBSHJmu02tEd5TbYPRIy1fkMRvwVYAMNe0b/eseaiHkS9yrEgbo2wErL1inIsCahkBzV0tICn/8ss2q1Jc0u1ZU/pniM7XxoxFLhw7+CgPtSlpc= 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=cog6V7xo; 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="cog6V7xo" 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 DF3FA11DD; Fri, 3 Jul 2026 18:32:06 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1783096327; bh=i6TVWHWqQQudxIMe0+xzj3AFPAlFnTOKf5VgUwJrtu8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cog6V7xozYBDGu5dRA4fDh2oxyhep48ghjhVee8mCVA3DzavrXI16kNBD2bt2nnyp obDQJb7dZtUpmR5RDV1jE69ggoiA9FgVvHentCXJaq6cBfLcCSN2TuyT98JzPp+z/5 HADOtt1f6FNs1N+SAaH7JskENQrGq697BYYmO2mE= Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2026 19:32:51 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" , 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: <20260703163251.GB3734786@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> 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> <20260702211740.GA639365@zen.localdomain> <3f447113-4407-471f-878f-e6d6edafee71@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: On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 02:12:40PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 09:05:58AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > > On 7/2/26 23:17, Boris Burkov wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 05:50:15PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > >> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 12:48:22PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > >>> > > >>> 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. > > >> > > > > > > At the risk of being pedantic on a point where I think the document is > > > kind of lacking: > > > > > > What level of assistance crosses the bar for an "Assisted-by: LLM" tag? > > > > > > Some sample levels of assistance to illustrate the point: > > > > > > 1. I used an llm to one-shot vibe-code a patch > > > 2. I used an llm to write a patch but carefully reviewed every line > > > 3. I used an llm to explore the design space for a patch but wrote it > > > manually > > > 4. I used an llm to debug or reproduce a kernel issue but then wrote the > > > fix manually after fully understanding the defect > > > 5. I used an llm to review a patch I wrote > > > 6. I used an llm to research some chunk of code while writing a patch > > > 7. I used Google while writing a patch and learned something valuable > > > from the AI overview at the top > > > > > > I personally would 100% use the tag for 1 or 2, and have already done > > > so. I have not been doing it for 3-5, as I think that will basically > > > make every patch llm-assisted to the point of the distinction being > > > meaningless. If we should be doing it for 3-5 (or some subset thereof) > > > then my mistake and I will certainly start doing so. I would hope most > > > people agree 6-7 and similar need no tag. > > I personally think 1-2 are the only relevant cases. > > > > > > > Similar questions abound if you use an llm to help with writing the > > > English text in the patch or emails. > > > > > > I have a feeling that this ambiguity is part of the reason we aren't all > > > agreeing on the value of the tag? > > > > Yes, I raised something similar as reply to Christian's RFC [1], where I said > > that for me the information *how* it was used is much more important: > > > > " > > Assisted-by: LLM # translate commit message > > Assisted-by: LLM # generate some test cases > > Assisted-by: LLM # cleanup logic > > Assisted-by: LLM # everything and I have no clue what any in here does > > " > > Yup, and we don't need complicated rules for that just 'document what you used > it for and give a sense of how much'. > > It's fuzzy but useful. > > > > > That tag is it stands is pretty useless, really. > > Not to go over it all again but I disagree, even as it stands, it allows us to > engage in conversation about the LLM usage if admitted, and to point those who > are misbehaving at the rules if not. > > And it is a clear way to get the boolean 'is this person saying they used an > LLM'. > > But I agree with you it'd be MUCH more useful if we did the above. > > I wonder if we could get consensus on adding a section to the doc saying that > it'd be _useful_ to add a comment explaining _what_ you did, and explaining the > concept with some examples? I'd support a patch that replaces Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse with Assisted-by: LLM # generate some test cases and rewrites the Attribution section of Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst accordingly. I think most people in this mail thread have expressed that how generative AI was used is the most important information, and several people (including myself) have expressed a desire to stop the free advertising. Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone has expressed an interest in keeping the agent name and model. > I can't imagine anybody would disagree with that, and that would get us positive > forward progress. > > Then later we could debate the details further? > > > I assume most people only really use it for something in-between 1 and 2, but > > *who knows*. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/5e7b9d23-4291-48fb-bdc6-47db82d33c80@kernel.org -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart