On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 02:12:40PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 09:05:58AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > > On 7/2/26 23:17, Boris Burkov wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 05:50:15PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > >> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 12:48:22PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > >>> > > >>> 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. > > >> > > > > > > At the risk of being pedantic on a point where I think the document is > > > kind of lacking: > > > > > > What level of assistance crosses the bar for an "Assisted-by: LLM" tag? > > > > > > Some sample levels of assistance to illustrate the point: > > > > > > 1. I used an llm to one-shot vibe-code a patch > > > 2. I used an llm to write a patch but carefully reviewed every line > > > 3. I used an llm to explore the design space for a patch but wrote it > > > manually > > > 4. I used an llm to debug or reproduce a kernel issue but then wrote the > > > fix manually after fully understanding the defect > > > 5. I used an llm to review a patch I wrote > > > 6. I used an llm to research some chunk of code while writing a patch > > > 7. I used Google while writing a patch and learned something valuable > > > from the AI overview at the top > > > > > > I personally would 100% use the tag for 1 or 2, and have already done > > > so. I have not been doing it for 3-5, as I think that will basically > > > make every patch llm-assisted to the point of the distinction being > > > meaningless. If we should be doing it for 3-5 (or some subset thereof) > > > then my mistake and I will certainly start doing so. I would hope most > > > people agree 6-7 and similar need no tag. > > I personally think 1-2 are the only relevant cases. > > > > > > > Similar questions abound if you use an llm to help with writing the > > > English text in the patch or emails. > > > > > > I have a feeling that this ambiguity is part of the reason we aren't all > > > agreeing on the value of the tag? > > > > Yes, I raised something similar as reply to Christian's RFC [1], where I > > said > > that for me the information *how* it was used is much more important: > > > > " > > Assisted-by: LLM # translate commit message > > Assisted-by: LLM # generate some test cases > > Assisted-by: LLM # cleanup logic > > Assisted-by: LLM # everything and I have no clue what any in here does > > " > > Yup, and we don't need complicated rules for that just 'document what you used > it for and give a sense of how much'. > > It's fuzzy but useful. > > > > > That tag is it stands is pretty useless, really. > > Not to go over it all again but I disagree, even as it stands, it allows us to > engage in conversation about the LLM usage if admitted, and to point those who > are misbehaving at the rules if not. > > And it is a clear way to get the boolean 'is this person saying they used an > LLM'. > > But I agree with you it'd be MUCH more useful if we did the above. > > I wonder if we could get consensus on adding a section to the doc saying that > it'd be _useful_ to add a comment explaining _what_ you did, and explaining > the > concept with some examples?
I'd support a patch that replaces Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse with Assisted-by: LLM # generate some test cases and rewrites the Attribution section of Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst accordingly. I think most people in this mail thread have expressed that how generative AI was used is the most important information, and several people (including myself) have expressed a desire to stop the free advertising. Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone has expressed an interest in keeping the agent name and model. > I can't imagine anybody would disagree with that, and that would get us > positive > forward progress. > > Then later we could debate the details further? > > > I assume most people only really use it for something in-between 1 and 2, > > but > > *who knows*. > > > > [1] > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
