Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove the requirement for LLM attribution

[Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 11:02:19AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-07-02 at 17:53 +0300, Laurent Pinchart 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.
> > >
> > > 2/ It basically serves as free advertising for proprietary LLM companies.
> > >
> > > 3/ It's not clear why we want to collect this info in the first place.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > > Christian had proposed watering down the LLM attribution, but I think
> > > it's not productive to try and track this until we have a clearer sense
> > > of what we want to do with this information and how to make it more
> > > reliable.
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst  | 22 ----------------------
> > >  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 10 ----------
> >
> > You're missing scripts/checkpatch.pl.
> >
> > >  2 files changed, 32 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst
> > > index 899f4459c52d..c4cc0917fc92 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst
> > > @@ -35,25 +35,3 @@ is responsible for:
> > >  * Ensuring compliance with licensing requirements
> > >  * Adding their own Signed-off-by tag to certify the DCO
> > >  * Taking full responsibility for the contribution
> > > -
> > > -Attribution
> > > -===========
> > > -
> > > -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 in the following format::
> > > -
> > > -  Assisted-by: AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION [TOOL1] [TOOL2]
> > > -
> > > -Where:
> > > -
> > > -* ``AGENT_NAME`` is the name of the AI tool or framework
> > > -* ``MODEL_VERSION`` is the specific model version used
> > > -* ``[TOOL1] [TOOL2]`` are optional specialized analysis tools used
> > > -  (e.g., coccinelle, sparse, smatch, clang-tidy)
> > > -
> > > -Basic development tools (git, gcc, make, editors) should not be listed.
> > > -
> > > -Example::
> > > -
> > > -  Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse
> >
> > Documentation/process/generated-content.rst still clearly requests
> > contributors to disclose usage of code-generation tools. Even if we drop
> > the Assisted-by tag, I think it is useful to mention the requirement
> > here (probably including a link to generated-content.rst).
> >
>
> Fair point. Maybe we should keep the Attribution section then, and give
> it some brief text like:

I really do not understand how requiring disclosure but not tags isn't a
contradictory position?

If disclosure via tags is worthless because people don't always do it, how is
disclosure using rules not also worthless?

Tags seem like the clearest possible means of expressing this so now I'm
confused as to the point being argued here...

>
> "Contributions developed with LLM help should also follow the
> guidelines outlined in the generated-content document."
>
> With a link to generated-content.rst?

Again I proposed to send this patch alrady but oppose your one, so how should we
move forwards?

If the patch will land over my objections then fine I can save some time, but if
it's in question, maybe I can just do that bit separately?...

>
>
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> > > index cc6a1f73d7f2..b74c38aa9770 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> > > @@ -634,16 +634,6 @@ bugzilla.kernel.org is a public place in this sense, but email addresses
> > >  used there are private; so do not expose them in tags, unless the person
> > >  used them in earlier contributions.
> > >
> > > -Using Assisted-by:
> > > -------------------
> > > -
> > > -If you used any sort of advanced coding tool in the creation of your patch,
> > > -you need to acknowledge that use by adding an Assisted-by tag.  Failure to
> > > -do so may impede the acceptance of your work.  Please see
> > > -Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst for details regarding the
> > > -acknowledgment of coding assistants.
> > > -
> > > -
> > >  .. _the_canonical_patch_format:
> > >
> > >  The canonical patch format
> > >
> > > ---
> > > base-commit: 665159e246749578d4e4bfe106ee3b74edcdab18
> > > change-id: 20260702-aidoc-7e18f221d63a
>
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

Thanks, Lorenzo