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

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 7/3/26 08:37, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 07:32:15PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 06:19:15PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>>>
>>> Same here.  I don't care about stats, I care about "how do I review this
>>> patch" and this gives me that signal that I need if faced with a
>>> llm-helped patch.
>>>
>>> So it needs to stay please.
>>
>> There's the free advertising issue we still need to address. Would the
>> proposed "Assisted-by: LLM" tag to replace product names be an
>> acceptable option for you ?
> 
> I really don't care what the tag says,

Well, while you don't care, the current policy implies that:

"
Assisted-by: AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION
...
``MODEL_VERSION`` is the specific model version used
"

So clarifying there that a "Assisted-by: LLM" is also good enough would make
sense if we agree on that.


I'll also note, that the "*should* include an Assisted-by tag" is pretty weak,
as someone who worked on specs before.

My kids should clean up their room; doesn't work.


Really, if we want this to be useful in practice I only see the following way:

1) Document that it's a *must*, an document which scenarios we care about.

2) Encourage people to specify *how* AI was used.

Assisted-by: LLM # improve the patch description


Now, it will be hard for all susbsytems to agree on that, so I would hope that
Linus would just tell us what we should do :)

-- 
Cheers,

David