Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Annotating patches containing AI-assisted code

[Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2025, Sasha Levin wrote:

> In the context of this discussion it's a bit funny: we mandate that
> reviews will be responded to, but we don't mandate that the response
> will make any sense, which I think is Jiri's point.

Yeah, indeed, pretty much.

> The TIP maintainer's handbook (maintainer-tip.rst) actually seems to
> tackle this:
> 
>    SOBs after the author SOB are from people handling and transporting
>    the patch, but were not involved in development. SOB chains should
>    reflect the **real** route a patch took as it was propagated to us,
>    with the first SOB entry signalling primary authorship of a single
>    author.
> 
> Should we clarify that this is true for any kernel patches?

It also seems to handle Co-developed-by: in a nice way a few lines above.

I think both of these shouldn't really be specific to tip.git 
documentation, and should be made general.

With this in place (and with the additional requirement of documenting 
that the code/patch has been LLM-assisted), I believe this specific part 
of the problem should be mostly covered.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs