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

[Jori Koolstra]

> Op 02-07-2026 17:07 CEST schreef Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
>  
> 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

Why not:

Keep the tag like David suggested as:

Assisted-by: LLM # automated removal of useless blabla

I am indifferent to whether this should be a tag or just below the --- .

And add something like the systemd guidelines that Christian linked to to the
AI Coding Assistants doc page. This provides much more useful guidelines than
what is currently there. I triggered this whole discussion by reading the page
and adding the model to some clean-up commits, so some people do read it...

Best,
Jori.