On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 06:28:15PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Lorenzo, > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 03:57:11PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > I'm a little surprised I'm cc'd on this :) I'm not entirely sure if my > > pushing > > back on this is going to mean anything but I suppose here goes nothing. > > > > 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. > > > > Does something not being universally followed therefore make it worthless? > > > > You really have to explain that, because this is literally true of any rule > > whatsoever we might have in the kernel, should we drop all of them? > > > > I think you should replace this with a cogent argument such as that you > > feel it > > is not being used in the _majority_ of cases or is very rarely used, and > > that > > value is in your view not there. > > > > > > > > 2/ It basically serves as free advertising for proprietary LLM companies. > > > > I agree with this point, we should drop the model. > > > > > 3/ It's not clear why we want to collect this info in the first place. > > > > Well I made arguments on the other thread, but to repeat: > > > > - It makes it easier to engage with people when they do ack it. > > > > - It makes it far quicker to be able to do so. > > > > - There's a barrier to mentioning an LLM if it's not provided - people can > > get > > upset, or it can cause issues to raise it as a concern. > > > > - Even if it's only there in _some_ cases, it makes _those_ cases easier to > > deal > > with. > > As far as I understand, all the above arguments would also be addressed > with either a free-formed mention of LLM usage, or a formal > "non-advertising" tag that is not merged in the kernel history, right ?
Well I prefer a tag for reasons below. I'm fine with non-advertising yeah. > > > - It provides some (incomplete) data that might make it easier to deal with > > bug-causing patches. > > > > - It provides some (incomplete) data on bug rates with/without LLMs. > > For those two I suppose a machine-parseable tag in the git history could > improve things slightly compared to information provided in the patch > submission that would not get recorded in the history. Yeah, again I could live without it being in the tree. I think there's some advantages though. See below for tag argument. > > Is this why you have a preference for a formal tag compared to a > free-formed mention ? > > > I do agree they're far far less useful when there's not some indication of > > how > > much of the patch was LLM-generated. > > > > Their usefulness is obviously deeply far from perfect, but not zero. > > > > > 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. > > > > I feel there are purposes. Perhaps the argument is stronger for having the > > tags > > on submissions rather than actually in-tree, however. > > I really think we need to have the information at submission. I think I > have a slight preference for not recording it in the kernel tree, but > only slight. It seems we are more in agreement than it seems :) I prefer a tag as it's clear cut and easily greppable and easily noticeable. If it's words it can be vague or be unclear or inconsistent and you might miss etc. So I have a strong preference for a tag, would love to add details about how much LLM done (that'll be vague obviously + have grey lines). I agree gettig rid of model is worthwhile but I'm not bothered if we don't do that. Thanks, Lorenzo
