On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 11:57:46AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Thu, 2026-07-02 at 17:07 +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. > > But why? What do you intend to do with this information? > > Do you mean to use it as an indicator that the patch should receive > "extra" review (or maybe that it should be ignored)? Do you mean to use > it to generate some sort of statistics at a later time?
I use the information to decide how to review the patch, and what level of priority to give it. For that usage I don't need a tag, but I need the information in some human-readable form at patch submission time. > If we want to collect some sort of structured data like this, it would > be good to have some idea of how it will be used. That might inform the > format and content of what we're collecting. > > > > 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. > > I should have sent this as an RFC patch, but hopefully everyone is > treating that way anyway. To be clear, I don't have a strong preference > on whether we keep Assisted-by: or not, but I'd like to better > understand the intended uses of it if we do intend to keep it. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
