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
