LLM disclosure (was: [PATCH v2] vfs: remove the excl argument from the ->create() inode_operation)
Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.ecryptfs,dev.linux.lists.gfs2,dev.linux.lists.ntfs3,dev.linux.lists.ocfs2-devel,dev.linux.lists.v9fs,net.sourceforge.lists.linux-f2fs-devel,org.infradead.lists.linux-mtd,org.infradead.lists.linux-um,org.kernel.vger.ceph-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-cifs,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-efi,org.kernel.vger.linux-ext4,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-hardening,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-nfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-nilfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-unionfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-xfs,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
NeilBrown <[email protected]> writes: > On Sat, 08 Nov 2025, Jeff Layton wrote: >> Full disclosure: I did use Claude code to generate the first >> approximation of this patch, but I had to fix a number of things that it >> missed. I probably could have given it better prompts. In any case, I'm >> not sure how to properly attribute this (or if I even need to). > > My understanding is that if you fully understand (and can defend) the > code change with all its motivations and implications as well as if you > had written it yourself, then you don't need to attribute whatever fancy > text editor or IDE (e.g. Claude) that you used to help produce the > patch. The proposed policy for such things is here, under review right now: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ jon