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

On 2026-07-07 20:53 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On 2026-07-07 17:18 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 03:28:49PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > > On 7/7/26 14:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 11:49:31AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > > >> On 7/7/26 11:20, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think the silence suggests nobody :)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What we could do is send a patch to simply add a section on adding a comment
> > > >>> explaining _what_ used an LLM and strongly suggesting it would be helpful to do
> > > >>> so.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That should hopefully be uncontroversial, then later (or alongside that?) we
> > > >>> could submit an RFC for making the language move to 'you MUST do this', as that
> > > >>> will probably be the more controversial bit.
> > > >>
> > > >> Maybe we should just spell out about which scenario we care about where we really
> > > >> expect the disclosure.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sure, it might be more controversial and we could have that in a separate patch.
> > > >>
> > > >> I was thinking of the following end result:
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst
> > > >> index 899f4459c52d2..4c2ab4dfc6da7 100644
> > > >> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst
> > > >> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst
> > > >> @@ -40,20 +40,37 @@ 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::
> > > >> +helps track the evolving role of AI in the development process. Further,
> > > >> +for reviewers and maintainers it is also crucially important to know how
> > > >> +AI tools were used.
> > > >>  
> > > >> -  Assisted-by: AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION [TOOL1] [TOOL2]
> > > >> +Contributions that used AI to generate significant portions of code,
> > > >> +comments, or patch descriptions must include an Assisted-by tag in the
> > > >> +following format::
> > > >>  
> > > >> -Where (preferred):
> > > >> +  Assisted-by: LLM # brief description of usage
> > > >> +
> > > >> +Or alternatively::
> > > >> +
> > > >> +  Assisted-by: AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION # brief description of usage
> > > > 
> > > > I would like to drop this one. As I understand, several people objected
> > > > to including the product name in the git history as it is just free
> > > > adverising, and nobody objected to dropping it.
> > > 
> > > Yeah. I mean, we could go the following direction (dropping the models and
> > > encouraging also a description of usage for other tools), but not sure how
> > > much pushback we will get:
> > 
> > I haven't heard anyone involved in this mail thread objecting to the
> > concepts you translated into sentences below, so I think it's worth a
> > try. Of course there may be objections from people who are not aware of
> > this very conversation.
> 
> Then someone can basically just merge the original patch I sent since
> everyone seems to agree on that front. And then the extension to include
> how the LLM was used can be discussed in a separate patch.

https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected]

fwiw