On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 05:33:12PM +0200, Jori Koolstra wrote: > > > Op 02-07-2026 17:07 CEST schreef Greg KH <[email protected]>: > > > > > > 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 > > Why not: > > Keep the tag like David suggested as: > > Assisted-by: LLM # automated removal of useless blabla > > I am indifferent to whether this should be a tag or just below the --- . > > And add something like the systemd guidelines that Christian linked to to the > AI Coding Assistants doc page. This provides much more useful guidelines than > what is currently there. I triggered this whole discussion by reading the page > and adding the model to some clean-up commits, so some people do read it...
Yup am fine with all that! > > Best, > Jori. Thanks, Lorenzo
