From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 185F321A928 for ; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 17:50:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754416260; cv=none; b=oUskPmTcho6+cdYcbFAtjdnGCl+hCmTqiEiQo3GEZ1IUbw/D82Tm+BS+NiPaSqI6NnOwXdU73iIB8zJ2TvazDLXrV0KU2iw7+HjslUEYv23LsYWk43fjSgeCVsSm3O/7rFvHL2kflSI7oVuwPfN53M22mLPt+J9EuQ5nwRTtoFM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754416260; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kY6j/26ElAZZWmWcn0qA7GNC5+eoK64JTPocv/LQcgc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BG3uGxy3vQ8c5N3yQixKJHAQ6GGRGYKW9FRFa8ZaljMbilehcDrHwXXRoGJnqUnvJ1Tr0Bz8GfIu0Vqtk+siMwb/32lq7jSOf0q3cYHvo9BF1kbXHL6fweWiNBjY/kFTfSGE30oBZW7uQSH3ItQr578vAJ24RUI/xZDOht6H4H8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=pbpFIM5p; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="pbpFIM5p" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2882EC4CEF0; Tue, 5 Aug 2025 17:50:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754416259; bh=kY6j/26ElAZZWmWcn0qA7GNC5+eoK64JTPocv/LQcgc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=pbpFIM5pDzzBaNDCScdV9iQaD2eMsI1zwv6rmoTMYAXiR+esduRk1kN69hjp7F6uX rUB6qd0pcBrSmtfzBBi8ATj9Z/3Eug7GjsZEiNFAMk7TqeP6Rqyv8qys39vm59ZHGK UcfZDqmi/p0K4NKRKHlG9gt17M4BpchqT6kGPTNoiurEXmv/Pn132YdBAEWxHyWVM8 yR8Igv9PkDd+v9y+uqpSQ2KaIz9fflsdJ0gbSyzz6i1trMeLAPDiky2KTPh87wVmmB 2ywc3WVyUJSeuivyj7Mj1Kw2x/jK+GUCP0Sf5R1QnzlygcBBicPQ+BO8eXAMLhNisM FD9/lZZG1ky3w== Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 13:50:57 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Jiri Kosina Cc: ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code Message-ID: 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=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1npn33nq-713r-r502-p5op-q627pn5555oo@fhfr.pbz> 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. -- Thanks, Sasha