On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 03:26:58PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 01:51:10PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > > On 7/2/26 12:04, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > (thanks for the cc-!) > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 09:46:37AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > > >> On 7/2/26 09:27, Christian Brauner wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I think we should just drop any attribution as a general kernel-wide > > >>> rule and let subsystems require them as needed. Then you can have all > > >>> the complexity in mm for this that you think is needed for your > > >>> workflow to function. This is precisely what the subsystem profiles are > > >>> for. So maybe just add: > > > > > > A single comment is complexity? > > > > I think Christian meant more elaborate rules. More than just "If you used > > LLMs, > > disclose how you used them." > > Yes. > > I'm going to follow netdev and start dropping those tags from the > changelog completely too. After speaking to some bpf maintainers they > also don't use the tag. So I can safely assume that 3 large subsystems > don't bother with it. > > So seems to me that such requirements should just move into the > subsystem profiles. > > I think as a global policy this has ran its course. > > > > And is it really that egregious to include a tag? You can ignore it if > > > you don't > > > care. > > > > I hate the current tags as they are. The question I am asking myself: > > assume we > > stop using the Assisted-by for LLM stuff. What to do with the other tools? > > Why > > are LLMs suddenly no longer a tool to mention there. > > Tbh, I think that's equally pointless. There are also very few instances > of non-AI attribution with Assisted-by. > > If the tool mattered to what was done significantly then it should just > be disclosed in an appropriate paragraph in the commit message. The tag > itself is imho equally useless for this. I really don't need to know > that you used grep or git-sed or tcpdump and it certainly doesn't need > to spam the trailers.
We've dealt with coccinelle-generated code changes for ages without Assisted-by tags and without any issue. Submitters typically include the semantic patch in the commit message, or just mentioned coccinelle was used. I personally feel that the apparent generic scope of the Assisted-by trailer tag, and the fact that this is documented in a file named generated-content.rst, is an attempt to pretend generative AI is "just another tool" comparable to coccinelle or checkpatch. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
