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 5BF912580F2; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 15:15:30 +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=1783005331; cv=none; b=tPiyL1s3kfs7C7TxFOynHi7SfC8UzpBlCRBJG9M31Dz2pVGqNpha2G4OaWYrtqYBn+yfp38AKbgv1e3XJxUdwNSV8dZ2A7lI9LaGUmx6Jt4B/1504h9LLSrEQ4edCpFpKZwPIFX4UGd5n40bswDRQBR1gFiqswLNYgNiSbTVbZ0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783005331; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ILdIatvfROrbmleQt3e624R/tZsjOyvps3DferKuSX8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=rNSi7eC6r/OwIwZd5JPBf7tmqCpdvenEvIqO+vno6hnqIZ2ZNMZGUHeh1fGtNYtftZ/A8mXuRcNgbiuXObBQI5gW16wRcG7mXZBxhGFK2YQBxAKwORVeZrC9nlqTMA7NaRRS9s4afEnSkpUxsWJM8AT6GkzsZ8E77I+JhIL9J7U= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=msvV77h1; 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="msvV77h1" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6778B1F000E9; Thu, 2 Jul 2026 15:15:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783005330; bh=er3qb3iuTtb5rJPIxVuH9vOh6hBTypWdJKU0a3YM7qo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=msvV77h14T6pSSejLs1EuwDuy8Q213IBH16tJRLNTQKCGSREfejts2Celor1owqI/ JsYxggWaE0mZoF0beZJfnW3s7YK7JR0kxDSkYNIQMpHf1XbQY2EQLLoEQvuzkHh+nD WgILbhK1xlrncTngc1RTVCkw6vDeb7Cjd1pkA0CDvklh5KufAYk+eFqYVVuqbB6i81 miOqOWnVRVd3lMVKMB7Ge+7pfgDCPbD/gL3WURwDTZ18T1P2Wk54nKi1tmEGJUS5Nw I6BfF7m8JcQhkVkHdnV5Zw6gy9EOoffapPha8o53gIrlIPtUfKko7mstBK0NJI84qn 5KcWJvdYhRCfg== Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:15:18 +0100 From: Lorenzo Stoakes To: Greg KH Cc: Jeff Layton , Linus Torvalds , Jonathan Corbet , Justin Stitt , Laurent Pinchart , 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> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@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: <2026070224-unholy-commode-cf45@gregkh> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 05:07:03PM +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. > > > 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. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Entirely my view and experience. The tags are proactively useful, even if flawed and (possibly very) incomplete. I am totally fine with getting rid of the model however, and I do think it'd be useful to add a small paragraph suggesting that people add a comment indicating _how much_ of the patch was LLM-generated, even if it's vague and fuzzy. Some information > no information. Thanks, Lorenzo