On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 03:26:58PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 01:51:10PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > > On 7/2/26 12:04, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > (thanks for the cc-!) > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 09:46:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > > >> On 7/2/26 09:27, Christian Brauner wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I think we should just drop any attribution as a general kernel-wide > > >>> rule and let subsystems require them as needed. Then you can have all > > >>> the complexity in mm for this that you think is needed for your > > >>> workflow to function. This is precisely what the subsystem profiles are > > >>> for. So maybe just add: > > > > > > A single comment is complexity? > > > > I think Christian meant more elaborate rules. More than just "If you used > > LLMs, > > disclose how you used them." > > Yes. > > I'm going to follow netdev and start dropping those tags from the > changelog completely too. After speaking to some bpf maintainers they > also don't use the tag. So I can safely assume that 3 large subsystems > don't bother with it. > > So seems to me that such requirements should just move into the > subsystem profiles. > > I think as a global policy this has ran its course.
I'm honestly not sure why you sent this patch in the first place if you're simply going to ignore it (+ people's opinions) anyway :) Maybe we need a way of figuring out which patches mean something and which don't (I guess whatever Linus enforces is the real truth of that). Anyway I guess I'll get back to work, and we can figure out what we'll do in mm separately I guess. I'll still send a patch to link the apparently redundant AI doc to the generated tooling doc because for those who do pay attention it's silly that they're not connected. Thanks, Lorenzo
