On 7/3/26 08:37, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 07:32:15PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 06:19:15PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> So it needs to stay please. >> >> There's the free advertising issue we still need to address. Would the >> proposed "Assisted-by: LLM" tag to replace product names be an >> acceptable option for you ? > > I really don't care what the tag says,
Well, while you don't care, the current policy implies that: " Assisted-by: AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION ... ``MODEL_VERSION`` is the specific model version used " So clarifying there that a "Assisted-by: LLM" is also good enough would make sense if we agree on that. I'll also note, that the "*should* include an Assisted-by tag" is pretty weak, as someone who worked on specs before. My kids should clean up their room; doesn't work. Really, if we want this to be useful in practice I only see the following way: 1) Document that it's a *must*, an document which scenarios we care about. 2) Encourage people to specify *how* AI was used. Assisted-by: LLM # improve the patch description Now, it will be hard for all susbsytems to agree on that, so I would hope that Linus would just tell us what we should do :) -- Cheers, David
