From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F34E57E0FF for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 18:00:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754416830; cv=none; b=Z2Vu+uqzbS8WAoUcNfbx5/h59Xvib/VuyNfnE6zgDXLMmNkDmNC6MzRj0mETJBO6Pa+CiWKhBG34TdeuhDh9qullCRJK9chJGSNskBoXjPrneRg6W33bV0jJwcKDadu3k6IowIMPUzZdIf5Zh32x1Tjg1ylQVIjCND6sXMmJfNo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754416830; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SEYc1jlhxt2UMXKA4eVc13DYWSB2DFZ0GUp2ed1D90s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dDG5M8Pz3x3rm+IOoXXrAUU9oSh/R9kdQv2SMPfKgNykq5x3puRqkLMF/EaVBY8ebZbWTG2YZVjqUQELvOBmsJ9q0VN0iXTLjPPaE9AmagVIWcmoj/hVN1HOegcBO7CgrdVbX3iSWwkSUehZNIZR3iHiIGLLybEJWj9fmms5UWk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=fwRB1ANs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="fwRB1ANs" Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (81-175-209-231.bb.dnainternet.fi [81.175.209.231]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id CA5B03C46; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 19:59:36 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1754416777; bh=SEYc1jlhxt2UMXKA4eVc13DYWSB2DFZ0GUp2ed1D90s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fwRB1ANsWp/RanREz2mRSnC5MKRiuT/mpWTJYpW4yUswHnA2HPOUp721p9rktIgHc bJi3kvEmlzwfa9Kpy9zUlS6vWxU7KtnkdbczrGVH++EPT4MWog8lmiRNZz2vEf6o8V hpT7OnimlQ8V1LhyDA6P1Z5AbDpwysdNuyq/NFms= Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 21:00:10 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Sasha Levin Cc: Jiri Kosina , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code Message-ID: <20250805180010.GA24856@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 01:50:57PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 05:38:36PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > >This proposal is pretty much followup/spinoff of the discussion currently > >happening on LKML in one of the sub-threads of [1]. > > > >This is not really about legal aspects of AI-generated code and patches, I > >believe that'd be handled well handled well by LF, DCO, etc. > > > >My concern here is more "human to human", as in "if I need to talk to a > >human that actually does understand the patch deeply enough, in context, > >etc .. who is that?" > > > >I believe we need to at least settle on (and document) the way how to > >express in patch (meta)data: > > > >- this patch has been assisted by LLM $X > >- the human understanding the generated code is $Y > > > >We might just implicitly assume this to be the first person in the S-O-B > >chain (which I personally don't think works for all scenarios, you can > >have multiple people working on it, etc), but even in such case I believe > >this needs to be clearly documented. > > The above isn't really an AI problem though. > > We already have folks sending "checkpatch fixes" which only make code > less readable or "syzbot fixes" that shut up the warnings but are > completely bogus otherwise. > > Sure, folks sending "AI fixes" could (will?) be a growing problem, but > tackling just the AI side of it is addressing one of the symptoms, not > the underlying issue. Perfect, let's document a policy and kill two birds with one stone then. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart