[RFC PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: (AI?) Tool disclosure tag

[linux@treblig.org]

From: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@treblig.org>

It seems right to require that code which is automatically
generated is disclosed in the commit message.

This is a starting point.  It's purposely agnostic about
whether using any such tools is a good idea or not, and is also
agnostic about trying to draw any hard line about when a tool
should be disclosed like this.

Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <linux@treblig.org>
---
This span out of a Fediverse discussion, those involved cc'd

 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 12 ++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index cede4e7b29af..d7c8f47a4632 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -452,6 +452,18 @@ development. SoB chains should reflect the **real** route a patch took
 as it was propagated to the maintainers and ultimately to Linus, with
 the first SoB entry signalling primary authorship of a single author.
 
+Disclosing tool generated code
+------------------------------
+
+When a substantial part of the patch (code or text) has been generated by
+some automated system, such as an AI/LLM, or automated code patcher
+(e.g. Coccinelle) the use shall be disclosed by::
+
+  Generated-by: Example Tool 2.3
+
+Where possible, the input text or prompt should be included in the
+commit message to enable others to learn techniques that work well.
+
 
 When to use Acked-by:, Cc:, and Co-developed-by:
 ------------------------------------------------
-- 
2.50.1