It sounds good to me. Thanks Sandhya for organizing it.
‹Robert On 5/9/14, 2:51 PM, "Sandhya Dasu (sadasu)" <sad...@cisco.com> wrote: >Thanks for all your replies. > >Thanks for the great inputs on how to frame the discussion in the etherpad >so it becomes easier for people to get on board. We will add author indent >to track the source of the changes. Will work on cleaning that up. > >Regarding the session itself, as you probably know, there was an attempt >in Icehouse to get the sr-iov work going. We found that the time allotted >for the session was not sufficient to get to all the use cases and discuss >alternate views. > >This time around we want to be better prepared and so would like to keep >only a couple of open times for the actual session. Hence, the request for >the early meeting. > >How does Monday 1pm sound? > >Thanks, >Sandhya > >On 5/9/14 11:44 AM, "Steve Gordon" <sgor...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Li (baoli)" <ba...@cisco.com> >>> Subject: Re: Informal meeting before SR-IOV summit presentation >>> >>> This is the one that Irena created: >>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/pci_passthrough_cross_project >> >>Thanks, I missed this as it wasn't linked from the design summit Wiki >>page. >> >>-Steve >> >>> On 5/8/14, 4:33 PM, "Steve Gordon" <sgor...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> >----- Original Message ----- >>> >> > It would be nice to have an informal discussion / unconference >>>session >>> >> > before the actual summit session on SR-IOV. During the previous >>>IRC >>> >> > meeting, we were really close to identifying the different use >>>cases. >>> >> > There was a dangling discussion on introducing another level of >>> >> > indirection between the vnic_types exposed via the nova boot API >>>and >>> >>how >>> >> > it would be represented internally. It would be ideal to have >>>these 2 >>> >> > discussions converged before the summit session. >>> >> >>> >> What would be the purpose of doing that before the session? IMHO, a >>> >> large part of being able to solve this problem is getting everyone >>>up to >>> >> speed on what this means, what the caveats are, and what we're >>>trying to >>> >> solve. If we do some of that outside the scope of the larger >>>audience, I >>> >> expect we'll get less interaction (or end up covering it again) in >>>the >>> >> session. >>> >> >>> >> That said, if there's something I'm missing that needs to be >>>resolved >>> >> ahead of time, then that's fine, but I expect the best plan is to >>>just >>> >> keep the discussion to the session. Afterwards, additional things >>>can be >>> >> discussed in a one-off manner, but getting everyone on the same page >>>is >>> >> largely the point of having a session in the first place IMHO. >>> > >>> >Right, in spite of my previous response...looking at the etherpad >>>there >>> >is nothing there to frame the discussion at the moment: >>> > >>> >https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/juno-nova-sriov-support >>> > >>> >I think populating this should be a priority rather than organizing >>> >another session/meeting? >>> > >>> >Steve >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Steve Gordon, RHCE >>Product Manager, Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform >>Red Hat Canada (Toronto, Ontario) > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev