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.
Has there been any discussion regarding *how* to do so ? Jon mentioned that in many cases the failure to disclose is simply due to ignorance. That could be addressed by more advertising (not entirely sure where though, documentation isn't always read), or restructuring of coding-assistants.rst (as far as I understand, the file is supposed to be consumed by agents, so it should be reasonable to expect the LLM output to contain a tag). There are also cases where submitters refuse to comply with the rules (as in [1] apparently). For those cases, a clear message that maintainers will be fully supported by the community when they push back could help. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/[email protected]/ > > 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 > -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
