On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 12:48:22PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Thu, 2026-07-02 at 18:19 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 07:13:30PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Same here. I don't care about stats, I care about "how do I review this > > patch" and this gives me that signal that I need if faced with a > > llm-helped patch. > > > > > > Do we need a tag for this though? > > This seems like the kind of information that we would always require in > the cover letter of a series (or the little place in an individual > patch for comments that don't get merged). That would also allow you to > convey a lot more nuance about how it was used. > > ISTM asking people to disclose LLM usage in a cover letter would give > everyone what they want: Information about whether and possibly how an > LLM was used, and it also wouldn't clutter up the changelogs with these > tags.
It's much much clearer and easier to just have a standardised tag for that. You can see that (and grep for that) immediately, vague paragraphs not so much. > -- > Jeff Layton <[email protected]> Thanks, Lroenzo
