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

[Laurent Pinchart]

On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 02:12:40PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 09:05:58AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > On 7/2/26 23:17, Boris Burkov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 05:50:15PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 12:48:22PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Do we need a tag for this though?
> > >>>
> > >>> This seems like the kind of information that we would always require in
> > >>> the cover letter of a series (or the little place in an individual
> > >>> patch for comments that don't get merged). That would also allow you to
> > >>> convey a lot more nuance about how it was used.
> > >>>
> > >>> ISTM asking people to disclose LLM usage in a cover letter would give
> > >>> everyone what they want: Information about whether and possibly how an
> > >>> LLM was used, and it also wouldn't clutter up the changelogs with these
> > >>> tags.
> > >>
> > >> It's much much clearer and easier to just have a standardised tag for that.
> > >>
> > >> You can see that (and grep for that) immediately, vague paragraphs not so much.
> > >>
> > >
> > > At the risk of being pedantic on a point where I think the document is
> > > kind of lacking:
> > >
> > > What level of assistance crosses the bar for an "Assisted-by: LLM" tag?
> > >
> > > Some sample levels of assistance to illustrate the point:
> > >
> > > 1. I used an llm to one-shot vibe-code a patch
> > > 2. I used an llm to write a patch but carefully reviewed every line
> > > 3. I used an llm to explore the design space for a patch but wrote it
> > > manually
> > > 4. I used an llm to debug or reproduce a kernel issue but then wrote the
> > > fix manually after fully understanding the defect
> > > 5. I used an llm to review a patch I wrote
> > > 6. I used an llm to research some chunk of code while writing a patch
> > > 7. I used Google while writing a patch and learned something valuable
> > > from the AI overview at the top
> > >
> > > I personally would 100% use the tag for 1 or 2, and have already done
> > > so. I have not been doing it for 3-5, as I think that will basically
> > > make every patch llm-assisted to the point of the distinction being
> > > meaningless. If we should be doing it for 3-5 (or some subset thereof)
> > > then my mistake and I will certainly start doing so. I would hope most
> > > people agree 6-7 and similar need no tag.
> 
> I personally think 1-2 are the only relevant cases.
> 
> > >
> > > Similar questions abound if you use an llm to help with writing the
> > > English text in the patch or emails.
> > >
> > > I have a feeling that this ambiguity is part of the reason we aren't all
> > > agreeing on the value of the tag?
> >
> > Yes, I raised something similar as reply to Christian's RFC [1], where I said
> > that for me the information *how* it was used is much more important:
> >
> > "
> > Assisted-by: LLM # translate commit message
> > Assisted-by: LLM # generate some test cases
> > Assisted-by: LLM # cleanup logic
> > Assisted-by: LLM # everything and I have no clue what any in here does
> > "
> 
> Yup, and we don't need complicated rules for that just 'document what you used
> it for and give a sense of how much'.
> 
> It's fuzzy but useful.
> 
> >
> > That tag is it stands is pretty useless, really.
> 
> Not to go over it all again but I disagree, even as it stands, it allows us to
> engage in conversation about the LLM usage if admitted, and to point those who
> are misbehaving at the rules if not.
> 
> And it is a clear way to get the boolean 'is this person saying they used an
> LLM'.
> 
> But I agree with you it'd be MUCH more useful if we did the above.
> 
> I wonder if we could get consensus on adding a section to the doc saying that
> it'd be _useful_ to add a comment explaining _what_ you did, and explaining the
> concept with some examples?

I'd support a patch that replaces

Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse

with

Assisted-by: LLM # generate some test cases

and rewrites the Attribution section of
Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst accordingly.

I think most people in this mail thread have expressed that how
generative AI was used is the most important information, and several
people (including myself) have expressed a desire to stop the free
advertising. Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone has
expressed an interest in keeping the agent name and model.

> I can't imagine anybody would disagree with that, and that would get us positive
> forward progress.
> 
> Then later we could debate the details further?
> 
> > I assume most people only really use it for something in-between 1 and 2, but
> > *who knows*.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/5e7b9d23-4291-48fb-bdc6-47db82d33c80@xxxxxxxxxx

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart