On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 11:49:31AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 7/7/26 11:20, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 08:22:20PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > >> On 7/3/26 18:32, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>> > >>> 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. > >> > >> Yes, that's something I would enjoy seeing. Who reading along has a > >> problem with > >> that? (assuming that the tag must stay) > > > > I think the silence suggests nobody :) > > > > What we could do is send a patch to simply add a section on adding a comment > > explaining _what_ used an LLM and strongly suggesting it would be helpful > > to do > > so. > > > > That should hopefully be uncontroversial, then later (or alongside that?) we > > could submit an RFC for making the language move to 'you MUST do this', as > > that > > will probably be the more controversial bit. > > Maybe we should just spell out about which scenario we care about where we > really > expect the disclosure. > > Sure, it might be more controversial and we could have that in a separate > patch. > > I was thinking of the following end result: > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst > b/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst > index 899f4459c52d2..4c2ab4dfc6da7 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst > @@ -40,20 +40,37 @@ Attribution > =========== > > When AI tools contribute to kernel development, proper attribution > -helps track the evolving role of AI in the development process. > -Contributions should include an Assisted-by tag in the following format:: > +helps track the evolving role of AI in the development process. Further, > +for reviewers and maintainers it is also crucially important to know how > +AI tools were used. > > - Assisted-by: AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION [TOOL1] [TOOL2] > +Contributions that used AI to generate significant portions of code, > +comments, or patch descriptions must include an Assisted-by tag in the > +following format:: > > -Where (preferred): > + Assisted-by: LLM # brief description of usage > + > +Or alternatively:: > + > + Assisted-by: AGENT_NAME:MODEL_VERSION # brief description of usage
I would like to drop this one. As I understand, several people objected to including the product name in the git history as it is just free adverising, and nobody objected to dropping it. > + > +Where:: > > * ``AGENT_NAME`` is the name of the AI tool or framework > * ``MODEL_VERSION`` is the specific model version used > -* ``[TOOL1] [TOOL2]`` are optional specialized analysis tools used > - (e.g., coccinelle, sparse, smatch, clang-tidy) > + > +If other tools were used, they should be specified through a dedicated > +Assisted-by tag in the following format:: > + > + Assisted-by: [TOOL1] [TOOL2] > + > +Where ``[TOOL1] [TOOL2]`` are specialized analysis tools used > +(e.g., coccinelle, sparse, smatch, clang-tidy) > > Basic development tools (git, gcc, make, editors) should not be listed. > > -Example:: > +Examples:: > > - Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus coccinelle sparse > + Assisted-by: LLM # translate patch description > + Assisted-by: Claude:claude-3-opus # generate most of the code > + Assisted-by: coccinelle sparse > > > But I am not really sure why we should specify other tools here, really. > People usually do that as part of the patch description, including sharing > coccinelle scripts etc. We've mentioned coccinelle usage in commit messages, with a copy of the semantic patch, for years and years and I'm not aware of anyone giving a technical reason why we need a tag instead. The only reason I see is to avoid pointing specifically at LLMs and normalize their usage as "just another tool". That's a political reason, not a technical one. > Because looking at the history: > > $ git log | grep "Assisted-by" | grep -E "(coccinelle|sparse|smatch|clang)" > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle > Assisted-by: unnamed:deepseek-v3.2 coccinelle -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
