On 2026-07-07 17:18 +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 03:28:49PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > > On 7/7/26 14:40, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 11:49:31AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > > >> On 7/7/26 11:20, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > >>> > > >>> 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. > > > > Yeah. I mean, we could go the following direction (dropping the models and > > encouraging also a description of usage for other tools), but not sure how > > much pushback we will get: > > I haven't heard anyone involved in this mail thread objecting to the > concepts you translated into sentences below, so I think it's worth a > try. Of course there may be objections from people who are not aware of > this very conversation.
Then someone can basically just merge the original patch I sent since everyone seems to agree on that front. And then the extension to include how the LLM was used can be discussed in a separate patch.
