On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 05:07:03PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > 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
Entirely my view and experience. The tags are proactively useful, even if flawed and (possibly very) incomplete. I am totally fine with getting rid of the model however, and I do think it'd be useful to add a small paragraph suggesting that people add a comment indicating _how much_ of the patch was LLM-generated, even if it's vague and fuzzy. Some information > no information. Thanks, Lorenzo
