On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 10:44:34AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote: > On 7/2/26 10:12, Jori Koolstra wrote: > > Ah, I still reigniting this discussion again :) > > > > What about a combination of what David and Jeff say? The whole point > > seems to me that the salient information is not that an LLM was used (or > > are we going to tag Sashiko as well or any other LLM-based code review > > tool?), but what is was used to do. This information may be relevant for > > how the review is approached. The latter should perhaps only be in the > > cover letter and then we can drop the assisted-by tags altogether. > > > > The question about enforcement remains. > > It's not possible to enforce it. People can deny it if the tag is missing > and you confront them and even though the submission has many signs of being > obviously LLM, there is no definite proof. We've seen (likely, as there's no > proof!) that happen in mm. > > Such situation then penalizes those who disclose so obviously they won't.
I think there's also a penality for those who don't disclose when they're told they should: it will lower trust. Kernel development is largely based on a trust model. If a contributor decides to adopt a deceiptful behaviour, they can expect maintainers to raise the bar for accepting patches, when not rejecting them outright. I can't quantifying which of the penalities will be higher, but I hope (call me naive if you wish) that the vast majority of contributurs who *know* we require disclosure to abide by that rule, even if it incurs a penalty. After all, proponents for LLM usage claim such performance improvements that a small penalty during review can't be that bad, right ? :-) > We > should drop the tag and instead think how we can empower maintainers to be > able to use their own judgment and deprioritize dealing with what they > perceive as LLM slop, without fearing consequences of not being properly > responsible etc, and not rely on any non-enforceable tags for that. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
