Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 08:30, Theodore Tso wrote: > Well, Usenix has offerred to provide logistical support for some > mini-summits if anyoen wants to take them up on it. Using some of the > sponsorship money from last year, we've proposed to make some hotel > conference rooms right before OLS available if anyone wants to do a > 10-30 person mini-summit in Ottawa. > > Is there any interest? Yes, suspect that a day attached to OLS may make a good power-management summit day. -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 08:30, Theodore Tso wrote: Well, Usenix has offerred to provide logistical support for some mini-summits if anyoen wants to take them up on it. Using some of the sponsorship money from last year, we've proposed to make some hotel conference rooms right before OLS available if anyone wants to do a 10-30 person mini-summit in Ottawa. Is there any interest? Yes, suspect that a day attached to OLS may make a good power-management summit day. -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:30:43 PST, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > Gerrit Huizenga wrote: > > Don't confused KS with a conference; > > it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project. > > ... and *growing*, which is the real issue I think. > > Something that might make sense for KS is to have multiple sessions > (perhaps replacing some or all of the "mini-summits" that have cropped > up) combined with some bigger, overall sessions. At least that way > there would be more cross-pollination between the various groups than if > we eventually end up meeting everywhere. > > That's of course only practical if KS is separated from any other > conference (like OLS.) Are you thinking something like "core VM/scheduler/locking/etc." as one set of not-quite-so-mini-summit, and a "block IO/storage drivers/filesystems" as another, "arch maintainers" as another, and "all the nutty drivers and their writers" as perhaps a fourth? In other words, some semi-logical grouping of issues each as more free floating meetings? Or did I miss your suggestion? Easy on the judgement on practicality, btw. For instance, FAST is going to try to do some part of one of these - possibly larger than a networking mini-summit in scope but otherwise with similar goals. I think there are some options to consider for hosting some targetted working meetings in some of these areas, including the examples already given for some mini-summits. Some sponsors might help set up mini-summits (and some have in the psat), including considering the Linux Foundation as they do with the Desktop Architects Meeting (my favorite DAM meeting!). The challenge is to figure out what people want to have happen, the see if we can make it happen. gerrit - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Gerrit Huizenga wrote: Don't confused KS with a conference; it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project. ... and *growing*, which is the real issue I think. Something that might make sense for KS is to have multiple sessions (perhaps replacing some or all of the "mini-summits" that have cropped up) combined with some bigger, overall sessions. At least that way there would be more cross-pollination between the various groups than if we eventually end up meeting everywhere. That's of course only practical if KS is separated from any other conference (like OLS.) -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:49:11 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > Gerrit mentioned that half the committee shows up to be dead weight when > it comes down to the crunch at the end, so if this is the case, does it > really make sense to keep said members on the committee? LCA had how > many proposals? they handled it with a 7-8 member group I believe, and > yes I know Rusty did bitch about having to read a couple of hundred > papers, but they did pretty darn well. I believe in that same post, I pointed out that throughout the prep period, all members *did* have a valuable contribution. Don't use half the info to make a point, please. And for paper & proposal reviews, also having been on the OLS program committee for several years, I can guarantee you that these are two different birds. Paper proposals are more static, have a more or less intrinsic value that you can assess at a single reading. KS is *much* more dynamic, and would be just another conference if it weren't. KS is about current issues, and actions to address those issues. The *actions* part is a lot harder than the paper reading portion. Don't confused KS with a conference; it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project. gerrit - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
> If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and > attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations > that there's underhand things going on. There's only once voice I can hear moaning about the process. The same voice I seem to remember moaning about for the past few years. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Stephen Hemminger wrote: Some of those people have a role other than developing patches. This is not like stock in a public company where one patch == one vote. The important part is to make sure that the attendee list covers the people that have an desire to contribute. Sometimes there are people who aren't contributing to mainline kernel, but instead are off doing there own thing and need to be heard. How can we cause more interest? Stephen, I totally agree with this. I am trying to raise the issues because I hear a lot of dissent from various places. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations that there's underhand things going on. Dave, I'm sorry you feel that way, that is not the intention of it. I raise the issue of the number of members, and particularly the fact that seats are sold off to sponsors to the level they are. If we didn't continuously get touted that this has to be restricted to death to the point of being constructive this wouldn't be a problem, but thats where it is. Gerrit mentioned that half the committee shows up to be dead weight when it comes down to the crunch at the end, so if this is the case, does it really make sense to keep said members on the committee? LCA had how many proposals? they handled it with a 7-8 member group I believe, and yes I know Rusty did bitch about having to read a couple of hundred papers, but they did pretty darn well. All the PC committee members last year were on the same voting sheet as everyone else. Theoretically, I could have given low votes to Andi, Ted and everyone else on the PC, but that would be ridiculous given the work they do, and the value they've added to previous summits. If a person on the committee qualifies under the technical requirements decided upon by the committee, then obviously that person should be invited too. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:21:35AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > with having 12 committee members for an 80 seat summit, but nobody > seems to like to talk about that issue :) If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations that there's underhand things going on. Between this, and the constant nagging from some community members to find out if they'd made the cut (nearly EVERY DAY for a month), I sometimes wonder why I volunteered. Perhaps because like others on the PC, I felt it wasn't fair to burden Ted with all the workload. Remember that we're all volunteers here, and the suggestion that we're all doing it just to ensure attendance is just unfair. All the PC committee members last year were on the same voting sheet as everyone else. Theoretically, I could have given low votes to Andi, Ted and everyone else on the PC, but that would be ridiculous given the work they do, and the value they've added to previous summits. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:48:45AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > Well, OK, but the next question is that is some form of panel of > outsiders still a useful feature? > > Previous panels we've done have been: > > * Device Drivers - Inputs from vendors trying to get code into the > kernel. I had feedback that this was reasonably useful; the > problem is that it tends to be composed of vendors already > making a big effort on the open source process and not the ones > (like graphics) who aren't. > * Customer Panel - inputs from various users deploying linux in > their enterprises. This did tend to degenerate quickly to a > list of requirements. > > The one everyone seems to want is chipsets, so is this the one we want > to shoot for this year? chipsets is probably more interesting than cpus, yes. Most useful would be other open source projects and their requirements/wishes from the kernel, but we're already discussing that elsewhere in this maze of threads.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:48:45AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: Well, OK, but the next question is that is some form of panel of outsiders still a useful feature? Previous panels we've done have been: * Device Drivers - Inputs from vendors trying to get code into the kernel. I had feedback that this was reasonably useful; the problem is that it tends to be composed of vendors already making a big effort on the open source process and not the ones (like graphics) who aren't. * Customer Panel - inputs from various users deploying linux in their enterprises. This did tend to degenerate quickly to a list of requirements. The one everyone seems to want is chipsets, so is this the one we want to shoot for this year? chipsets is probably more interesting than cpus, yes. Most useful would be other open source projects and their requirements/wishes from the kernel, but we're already discussing that elsewhere in this maze of threads.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:21:35AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: with having 12 committee members for an 80 seat summit, but nobody seems to like to talk about that issue :) If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations that there's underhand things going on. Between this, and the constant nagging from some community members to find out if they'd made the cut (nearly EVERY DAY for a month), I sometimes wonder why I volunteered. Perhaps because like others on the PC, I felt it wasn't fair to burden Ted with all the workload. Remember that we're all volunteers here, and the suggestion that we're all doing it just to ensure attendance is just unfair. All the PC committee members last year were on the same voting sheet as everyone else. Theoretically, I could have given low votes to Andi, Ted and everyone else on the PC, but that would be ridiculous given the work they do, and the value they've added to previous summits. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations that there's underhand things going on. Dave, I'm sorry you feel that way, that is not the intention of it. I raise the issue of the number of members, and particularly the fact that seats are sold off to sponsors to the level they are. If we didn't continuously get touted that this has to be restricted to death to the point of being constructive this wouldn't be a problem, but thats where it is. Gerrit mentioned that half the committee shows up to be dead weight when it comes down to the crunch at the end, so if this is the case, does it really make sense to keep said members on the committee? LCA had how many proposals? they handled it with a 7-8 member group I believe, and yes I know Rusty did bitch about having to read a couple of hundred papers, but they did pretty darn well. All the PC committee members last year were on the same voting sheet as everyone else. Theoretically, I could have given low votes to Andi, Ted and everyone else on the PC, but that would be ridiculous given the work they do, and the value they've added to previous summits. If a person on the committee qualifies under the technical requirements decided upon by the committee, then obviously that person should be invited too. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Stephen Hemminger wrote: Some of those people have a role other than developing patches. This is not like stock in a public company where one patch == one vote. The important part is to make sure that the attendee list covers the people that have an desire to contribute. Sometimes there are people who aren't contributing to mainline kernel, but instead are off doing there own thing and need to be heard. How can we cause more interest? Stephen, I totally agree with this. I am trying to raise the issues because I hear a lot of dissent from various places. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations that there's underhand things going on. There's only once voice I can hear moaning about the process. The same voice I seem to remember moaning about for the past few years. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:49:11 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: Gerrit mentioned that half the committee shows up to be dead weight when it comes down to the crunch at the end, so if this is the case, does it really make sense to keep said members on the committee? LCA had how many proposals? they handled it with a 7-8 member group I believe, and yes I know Rusty did bitch about having to read a couple of hundred papers, but they did pretty darn well. I believe in that same post, I pointed out that throughout the prep period, all members *did* have a valuable contribution. Don't use half the info to make a point, please. And for paper proposal reviews, also having been on the OLS program committee for several years, I can guarantee you that these are two different birds. Paper proposals are more static, have a more or less intrinsic value that you can assess at a single reading. KS is *much* more dynamic, and would be just another conference if it weren't. KS is about current issues, and actions to address those issues. The *actions* part is a lot harder than the paper reading portion. Don't confused KS with a conference; it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project. gerrit - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Gerrit Huizenga wrote: Don't confused KS with a conference; it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project. ... and *growing*, which is the real issue I think. Something that might make sense for KS is to have multiple sessions (perhaps replacing some or all of the mini-summits that have cropped up) combined with some bigger, overall sessions. At least that way there would be more cross-pollination between the various groups than if we eventually end up meeting everywhere. That's of course only practical if KS is separated from any other conference (like OLS.) -hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:30:43 PST, H. Peter Anvin wrote: Gerrit Huizenga wrote: Don't confused KS with a conference; it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project. ... and *growing*, which is the real issue I think. Something that might make sense for KS is to have multiple sessions (perhaps replacing some or all of the mini-summits that have cropped up) combined with some bigger, overall sessions. At least that way there would be more cross-pollination between the various groups than if we eventually end up meeting everywhere. That's of course only practical if KS is separated from any other conference (like OLS.) Are you thinking something like core VM/scheduler/locking/etc. as one set of not-quite-so-mini-summit, and a block IO/storage drivers/filesystems as another, arch maintainers as another, and all the nutty drivers and their writers as perhaps a fourth? In other words, some semi-logical grouping of issues each as more free floating meetings? Or did I miss your suggestion? Easy on the judgement on practicality, btw. For instance, FAST is going to try to do some part of one of these - possibly larger than a networking mini-summit in scope but otherwise with similar goals. I think there are some options to consider for hosting some targetted working meetings in some of these areas, including the examples already given for some mini-summits. Some sponsors might help set up mini-summits (and some have in the psat), including considering the Linux Foundation as they do with the Desktop Architects Meeting (my favorite DAM meeting!). The challenge is to figure out what people want to have happen, the see if we can make it happen. gerrit - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Matt Domsch wrote: As one who regularly fills a sponsor slot (though I have also gotten an invitation on merit in the past), I don't believe the sponsor slot people detract from the sessions. Most of the time we keep quiet, occasionally offering our insights or challenges. Jonathan's writeups are fantastic, but it doesn't really compare with being there and participating in discussions, either hallway or main room. Besides consuming oxygen, what's the real concern here? Hi Matt, I don't think sponsor slots per se are damaging, the problem is that they take up a seat. Combined with this fanatic 'we must only allow our favorite 80 elite people into the room' idea. In this situation sponsor slots are costly and often a waste at the technical level. Same goes with having 12 committee members for an 80 seat summit, but nobody seems to like to talk about that issue :) Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:30:25AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:16:21 +0100 Jes Sorensen wrote: > > > James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 01:06 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > >> The last couple of years there's been roughly 13 seats sold to sponsors, > > >> which is somewhere in the order or 15%. Even if we assume that say 50% > > >> of those seats have been given to relevant participants, thats still a > > >> lot of waste. > > > > > > The sad fact is that putting on a summit costs money. If the attendees > > > themselves don't pay then it has to come from somewhere. The current > > > funding mechanism is open for discussion, like the agenda ... what did > > > you have in mind? > > > > I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think > > KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling > > seats to sponsors shouldn't be necessary. As one who regularly fills a sponsor slot (though I have also gotten an invitation on merit in the past), I don't believe the sponsor slot people detract from the sessions. Most of the time we keep quiet, occasionally offering our insights or challenges. Jonathan's writeups are fantastic, but it doesn't really compare with being there and participating in discussions, either hallway or main room. Besides consuming oxygen, what's the real concern here? Thanks, Matt -- Matt Domsch Software Architect Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 22:24 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >> I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think > >> KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling > >> seats to sponsors shouldn't be necessary. > > > > So SGI will undertake to step up and sponsor KS this year without a > > guaranteed slot? > > I didn't realize that all your postings to this list were the official > views of Steeleye? That would make two of us then. > I can't say what SGI will do on this, I'm an engineer not a manager, > I can however suggest to them that they do. As Willy said, if it was > an even playing field it would probably be a lot more likely they would, > compared to how it is today. OK, but what I'm trying to get across is that saying "get rid of the sponsored places" isn't really useful without a suggestion of how to raise the necessary cash. Saying "I talked to SGI and they'd be willing to forgo their sponsored attendees if everyone else did" might get us somewhere... James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Jes Sorensen wrote: Greg Ungerer wrote: Dave Jones wrote: Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Which is good, provided that non-mmu work is actively driving some of the decisions in mainline. Given that I don't follow the non-mmu work at all, I don't have a feel for whether that is the case, but I could imagine that it would have some impact that needs to be taken into account at times. Exactly. My worry is for spending time and slots on things / people dealing with classic architectures which are no longer being manufactured and are only being maintained in catch-up mode. Agreed, but I haven't seen that in the past. The CPU panel at least has always covered current (and future) hardware. Regards Greg - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling seats to sponsors shouldn't be necessary. So SGI will undertake to step up and sponsor KS this year without a guaranteed slot? I didn't realize that all your postings to this list were the official views of Steeleye? I can't say what SGI will do on this, I'm an engineer not a manager, I can however suggest to them that they do. As Willy said, if it was an even playing field it would probably be a lot more likely they would, compared to how it is today. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:11:34AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > Not sure that abstract of a discussion thing would really work though. > > It seems a bit contradicting in itself. > > I was thinking more an abstract as in something that should provide a > short summary of the problem and why it should be discussed at KS. > I don't think papers etc. would do any good at this level. Something > specifically targetted at KS. If you really want to get people up to speed on a topic, then you need a bibliography - which in practice may just be a few links to articles on the h/w involved, research papers on the s/w techniques, or just to previous mailing list discussions (especially if these were on a special topic list rather then on LKML). That would give people whose interest is piqued by the abstract a starting point to learn a bit more before the summit so there can be an informed discussion. -Tony - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:27 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > This only works if everyone gets that treatment. It can work -- look > at Eben getting funding for the SFLC with no sponsor representation. > However, you might expect sponsors trying to influence selection in > other ways -- for example, pushing to have their employees as members > of the program committee. Not necessarily ... you can also work on a group by persuading one person to exhibit the desired behaviour and then going around all the others asking them if they'd like to follow suit. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 11:10:57AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think > > KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling > > seats to sponsors shouldn't be necessary. > > So SGI will undertake to step up and sponsor KS this year without a > guaranteed slot? This only works if everyone gets that treatment. It can work -- look at Eben getting funding for the SFLC with no sponsor representation. However, you might expect sponsors trying to influence selection in other ways -- for example, pushing to have their employees as members of the program committee. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:53 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > As usual, "it depends" on the content. Can we provide them with > sufficient instructions/guidance so that the listeners get the content > that is desired instead of just some pseudo-marketing or requirements > list? Any of those panels (Customer or CPU) could have been good or > bad. This is a really nasty problem. By and large, only organisations who are active participants in the Linux community are happy sending their technical architects ungaurded to a developer summit (like we get for the CPU panel). The objective is always to get technical (not marketing) people who haven't been frightened into silence by their legal department and, if people want chipsets, that's what we'll try to do ... it just takes a lot of persuasion, so the earlier we start ... James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:48:45 -0600 James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:30 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > > It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the > > > CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually > > > a fairly popular session, so I'd be surprised if it got dropped). > > > something along the lines of > > > > Count my vote for dropping the cpu panels session. It's been far > > too marketing oriented, and all of the companies have far more interesting > > meetings of their own where thos caring about a particular architecture > > (and that includes much more than just the cpu!) can have usefull > > discussions. > > Well, OK, but the next question is that is some form of panel of > outsiders still a useful feature? > > Previous panels we've done have been: > > * Device Drivers - Inputs from vendors trying to get code into the > kernel. I had feedback that this was reasonably useful; the > problem is that it tends to be composed of vendors already > making a big effort on the open source process and not the ones > (like graphics) who aren't. > * Customer Panel - inputs from various users deploying linux in > their enterprises. This did tend to degenerate quickly to a > list of requirements. > > The one everyone seems to want is chipsets, so is this the one we want > to shoot for this year? As usual, "it depends" on the content. Can we provide them with sufficient instructions/guidance so that the listeners get the content that is desired instead of just some pseudo-marketing or requirements list? Any of those panels (Customer or CPU) could have been good or bad. --- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:30 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the > > CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually > > a fairly popular session, so I'd be surprised if it got dropped). > > something along the lines of > > Count my vote for dropping the cpu panels session. It's been far > too marketing oriented, and all of the companies have far more interesting > meetings of their own where thos caring about a particular architecture > (and that includes much more than just the cpu!) can have usefull discussions. Well, OK, but the next question is that is some form of panel of outsiders still a useful feature? Previous panels we've done have been: * Device Drivers - Inputs from vendors trying to get code into the kernel. I had feedback that this was reasonably useful; the problem is that it tends to be composed of vendors already making a big effort on the open source process and not the ones (like graphics) who aren't. * Customer Panel - inputs from various users deploying linux in their enterprises. This did tend to degenerate quickly to a list of requirements. The one everyone seems to want is chipsets, so is this the one we want to shoot for this year? James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:29 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:18:16AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > > Likewise IOMMUs. > > > > There were a number of people there last year who understood IOMMUs > > and could easily talk at length about them if able to do so. iirc, > > you were also invited, but were unable to travel due to bad things > > falling from the sky in Israel at the time ? > > That was OLS, not KS. Also, that's not the impression I got from > reading the lwn.net summary (and I know several IOMMU people such as > Olof were not invited... I think it was just jejb and ak?). Most of the useful IOMMU discussion happened at OLS anyway in the various virtualisation talks. I would expect that if there's a virtualisation mini summit going on that these would again be discussed there. I suppose on a side note, in spite of the fact that the virtualisation summit has identified IO as the major discussion area, no virtualisation people actually signed up for the Filesystem and IO summit ... James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
> Don't: > - Waffle about process shrink roadmaps. Buy a graphics company, continue blocking 2D support and expect anyone to even care about your hardware ... ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:30:00AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the > > organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if > > mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move > > them on to a more templated basis (so anyone wishing to organise one > > would know whom to go to for these things). > > Well, Usenix has offerred to provide logistical support for some > mini-summits if anyoen wants to take them up on it. Using some of the > sponsorship money from last year, we've proposed to make some hotel > conference rooms right before OLS available if anyone wants to do a > 10-30 person mini-summit in Ottawa. > > Is there any interest? > I think there's enough of relevance for an embedded mini-summit this year, particularly as it's not clear that there's going to be a power management summit this year (though of course there are many other topics to be looked at, too). Does that count? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:30 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the > > organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if > > mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move > > them on to a more templated basis (so anyone wishing to organise one > > would know whom to go to for these things). > > Well, Usenix has offerred to provide logistical support for some > mini-summits if anyoen wants to take them up on it. Using some of the > sponsorship money from last year, we've proposed to make some hotel > conference rooms right before OLS available if anyone wants to do a > 10-30 person mini-summit in Ottawa. > > Is there any interest? Martin was looking into organising the VM summit thereabouts. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the > organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if > mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move > them on to a more templated basis (so anyone wishing to organise one > would know whom to go to for these things). Well, Usenix has offerred to provide logistical support for some mini-summits if anyoen wants to take them up on it. Using some of the sponsorship money from last year, we've proposed to make some hotel conference rooms right before OLS available if anyone wants to do a 10-30 person mini-summit in Ottawa. Is there any interest? - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the > CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually > a fairly popular session, so I'd be surprised if it got dropped). > something along the lines of Count my vote for dropping the cpu panels session. It's been far too marketing oriented, and all of the companies have far more interesting meetings of their own where thos caring about a particular architecture (and that includes much more than just the cpu!) can have usefull discussions. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > Networking > Wireless > Filesystems > Storage > Power Management > > And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the > organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if > mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move > them on to a more templated basis (so anyone wishing to organise one > would know whom to go to for these things). One thing that might have made these mini-summits so successull might have been the ad-hoc setup without much corporate or organizational involvement. I'm looking forward to see if we can keep this spirit despite the Usenix involvement for the next FS/Storage summit. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually a fairly popular session, so I'd be surprised if it got dropped). something along the lines of Count my vote for dropping the cpu panels session. It's been far too marketing oriented, and all of the companies have far more interesting meetings of their own where thos caring about a particular architecture (and that includes much more than just the cpu!) can have usefull discussions. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: Networking Wireless Filesystems Storage Power Management And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move them on to a more templated basis (so anyone wishing to organise one would know whom to go to for these things). One thing that might have made these mini-summits so successull might have been the ad-hoc setup without much corporate or organizational involvement. I'm looking forward to see if we can keep this spirit despite the Usenix involvement for the next FS/Storage summit. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move them on to a more templated basis (so anyone wishing to organise one would know whom to go to for these things). Well, Usenix has offerred to provide logistical support for some mini-summits if anyoen wants to take them up on it. Using some of the sponsorship money from last year, we've proposed to make some hotel conference rooms right before OLS available if anyone wants to do a 10-30 person mini-summit in Ottawa. Is there any interest? - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:30 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move them on to a more templated basis (so anyone wishing to organise one would know whom to go to for these things). Well, Usenix has offerred to provide logistical support for some mini-summits if anyoen wants to take them up on it. Using some of the sponsorship money from last year, we've proposed to make some hotel conference rooms right before OLS available if anyone wants to do a 10-30 person mini-summit in Ottawa. Is there any interest? Martin was looking into organising the VM summit thereabouts. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:30:00AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move them on to a more templated basis (so anyone wishing to organise one would know whom to go to for these things). Well, Usenix has offerred to provide logistical support for some mini-summits if anyoen wants to take them up on it. Using some of the sponsorship money from last year, we've proposed to make some hotel conference rooms right before OLS available if anyone wants to do a 10-30 person mini-summit in Ottawa. Is there any interest? I think there's enough of relevance for an embedded mini-summit this year, particularly as it's not clear that there's going to be a power management summit this year (though of course there are many other topics to be looked at, too). Does that count? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Don't: - Waffle about process shrink roadmaps. Buy a graphics company, continue blocking 2D support and expect anyone to even care about your hardware ... ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:29 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:18:16AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: Likewise IOMMUs. There were a number of people there last year who understood IOMMUs and could easily talk at length about them if able to do so. iirc, you were also invited, but were unable to travel due to bad things falling from the sky in Israel at the time ? That was OLS, not KS. Also, that's not the impression I got from reading the lwn.net summary (and I know several IOMMU people such as Olof were not invited... I think it was just jejb and ak?). Most of the useful IOMMU discussion happened at OLS anyway in the various virtualisation talks. I would expect that if there's a virtualisation mini summit going on that these would again be discussed there. I suppose on a side note, in spite of the fact that the virtualisation summit has identified IO as the major discussion area, no virtualisation people actually signed up for the Filesystem and IO summit ... James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:30 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually a fairly popular session, so I'd be surprised if it got dropped). something along the lines of Count my vote for dropping the cpu panels session. It's been far too marketing oriented, and all of the companies have far more interesting meetings of their own where thos caring about a particular architecture (and that includes much more than just the cpu!) can have usefull discussions. Well, OK, but the next question is that is some form of panel of outsiders still a useful feature? Previous panels we've done have been: * Device Drivers - Inputs from vendors trying to get code into the kernel. I had feedback that this was reasonably useful; the problem is that it tends to be composed of vendors already making a big effort on the open source process and not the ones (like graphics) who aren't. * Customer Panel - inputs from various users deploying linux in their enterprises. This did tend to degenerate quickly to a list of requirements. The one everyone seems to want is chipsets, so is this the one we want to shoot for this year? James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:48:45 -0600 James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:30 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually a fairly popular session, so I'd be surprised if it got dropped). something along the lines of Count my vote for dropping the cpu panels session. It's been far too marketing oriented, and all of the companies have far more interesting meetings of their own where thos caring about a particular architecture (and that includes much more than just the cpu!) can have usefull discussions. Well, OK, but the next question is that is some form of panel of outsiders still a useful feature? Previous panels we've done have been: * Device Drivers - Inputs from vendors trying to get code into the kernel. I had feedback that this was reasonably useful; the problem is that it tends to be composed of vendors already making a big effort on the open source process and not the ones (like graphics) who aren't. * Customer Panel - inputs from various users deploying linux in their enterprises. This did tend to degenerate quickly to a list of requirements. The one everyone seems to want is chipsets, so is this the one we want to shoot for this year? As usual, it depends on the content. Can we provide them with sufficient instructions/guidance so that the listeners get the content that is desired instead of just some pseudo-marketing or requirements list? Any of those panels (Customer or CPU) could have been good or bad. --- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:53 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: As usual, it depends on the content. Can we provide them with sufficient instructions/guidance so that the listeners get the content that is desired instead of just some pseudo-marketing or requirements list? Any of those panels (Customer or CPU) could have been good or bad. This is a really nasty problem. By and large, only organisations who are active participants in the Linux community are happy sending their technical architects ungaurded to a developer summit (like we get for the CPU panel). The objective is always to get technical (not marketing) people who haven't been frightened into silence by their legal department and, if people want chipsets, that's what we'll try to do ... it just takes a lot of persuasion, so the earlier we start ... James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 11:10:57AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling seats to sponsors shouldn't be necessary. So SGI will undertake to step up and sponsor KS this year without a guaranteed slot? This only works if everyone gets that treatment. It can work -- look at Eben getting funding for the SFLC with no sponsor representation. However, you might expect sponsors trying to influence selection in other ways -- for example, pushing to have their employees as members of the program committee. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:27 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: This only works if everyone gets that treatment. It can work -- look at Eben getting funding for the SFLC with no sponsor representation. However, you might expect sponsors trying to influence selection in other ways -- for example, pushing to have their employees as members of the program committee. Not necessarily ... you can also work on a group by persuading one person to exhibit the desired behaviour and then going around all the others asking them if they'd like to follow suit. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:11:34AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: Not sure that abstract of a discussion thing would really work though. It seems a bit contradicting in itself. I was thinking more an abstract as in something that should provide a short summary of the problem and why it should be discussed at KS. I don't think papers etc. would do any good at this level. Something specifically targetted at KS. If you really want to get people up to speed on a topic, then you need a bibliography - which in practice may just be a few links to articles on the h/w involved, research papers on the s/w techniques, or just to previous mailing list discussions (especially if these were on a special topic list rather then on LKML). That would give people whose interest is piqued by the abstract a starting point to learn a bit more before the summit so there can be an informed discussion. -Tony - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling seats to sponsors shouldn't be necessary. So SGI will undertake to step up and sponsor KS this year without a guaranteed slot? I didn't realize that all your postings to this list were the official views of Steeleye? I can't say what SGI will do on this, I'm an engineer not a manager, I can however suggest to them that they do. As Willy said, if it was an even playing field it would probably be a lot more likely they would, compared to how it is today. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Jes Sorensen wrote: Greg Ungerer wrote: Dave Jones wrote: Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Which is good, provided that non-mmu work is actively driving some of the decisions in mainline. Given that I don't follow the non-mmu work at all, I don't have a feel for whether that is the case, but I could imagine that it would have some impact that needs to be taken into account at times. Exactly. My worry is for spending time and slots on things / people dealing with classic architectures which are no longer being manufactured and are only being maintained in catch-up mode. Agreed, but I haven't seen that in the past. The CPU panel at least has always covered current (and future) hardware. Regards Greg - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 22:24 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling seats to sponsors shouldn't be necessary. So SGI will undertake to step up and sponsor KS this year without a guaranteed slot? I didn't realize that all your postings to this list were the official views of Steeleye? That would make two of us then. I can't say what SGI will do on this, I'm an engineer not a manager, I can however suggest to them that they do. As Willy said, if it was an even playing field it would probably be a lot more likely they would, compared to how it is today. OK, but what I'm trying to get across is that saying get rid of the sponsored places isn't really useful without a suggestion of how to raise the necessary cash. Saying I talked to SGI and they'd be willing to forgo their sponsored attendees if everyone else did might get us somewhere... James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:30:25AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:16:21 +0100 Jes Sorensen wrote: James Bottomley wrote: On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 01:06 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: The last couple of years there's been roughly 13 seats sold to sponsors, which is somewhere in the order or 15%. Even if we assume that say 50% of those seats have been given to relevant participants, thats still a lot of waste. The sad fact is that putting on a summit costs money. If the attendees themselves don't pay then it has to come from somewhere. The current funding mechanism is open for discussion, like the agenda ... what did you have in mind? I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling seats to sponsors shouldn't be necessary. As one who regularly fills a sponsor slot (though I have also gotten an invitation on merit in the past), I don't believe the sponsor slot people detract from the sessions. Most of the time we keep quiet, occasionally offering our insights or challenges. Jonathan's writeups are fantastic, but it doesn't really compare with being there and participating in discussions, either hallway or main room. Besides consuming oxygen, what's the real concern here? Thanks, Matt -- Matt Domsch Software Architect Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com www.dell.com/linux Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Matt Domsch wrote: As one who regularly fills a sponsor slot (though I have also gotten an invitation on merit in the past), I don't believe the sponsor slot people detract from the sessions. Most of the time we keep quiet, occasionally offering our insights or challenges. Jonathan's writeups are fantastic, but it doesn't really compare with being there and participating in discussions, either hallway or main room. Besides consuming oxygen, what's the real concern here? Hi Matt, I don't think sponsor slots per se are damaging, the problem is that they take up a seat. Combined with this fanatic 'we must only allow our favorite 80 elite people into the room' idea. In this situation sponsor slots are costly and often a waste at the technical level. Same goes with having 12 committee members for an 80 seat summit, but nobody seems to like to talk about that issue :) Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:18:16AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > Likewise IOMMUs. > > There were a number of people there last year who understood IOMMUs > and could easily talk at length about them if able to do so. iirc, > you were also invited, but were unable to travel due to bad things > falling from the sky in Israel at the time ? That was OLS, not KS. Also, that's not the impression I got from reading the lwn.net summary (and I know several IOMMU people such as Olof were not invited... I think it was just jejb and ak?). Cheers, Muli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:43:12AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:51:51AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > > Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the > > people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case > > there's really little concrete that can come out of the discussion. > > Likewise IOMMUs. There were a number of people there last year who understood IOMMUs and could easily talk at length about them if able to do so. iirc, you were also invited, but were unable to travel due to bad things falling from the sky in Israel at the time ? > I think Andrew's suggestion of adding a CFP phase to KS is excellent - > get some new blood in the room and spice up the discussion. I don't see anything that really precludes the idea. Or even the notion of both that and some of the old format for some of the sessions. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:51:51AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the > people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case > there's really little concrete that can come out of the discussion. Likewise IOMMUs. I think Andrew's suggestion of adding a CFP phase to KS is excellent - get some new blood in the room and spice up the discussion. Cheers, Muli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:11:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote: > > Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember > > any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. > > No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And there was a presentation on PPC. > > But that was planned to be differently with more focus on embedded, > unfortunately the comittee didn't manage to find more embedded CPU > people in time. > It might be interesting to have a more condensed CPU panel, something like the OLS lightning talks. Gather a larger number of vendors, and give each a small window to bring up the most relevant issues for them in the future, while also allowing for some feedback and Q It would be nice to get more input from CPU architects, but only if it's possible to keep it entirely technical and moving along without anyone having to hurry their window of time due to someone else overstepping theirs. If they only have a small window to present their concerns, I think we'll see a lot of the fluff (as itemized by davej) go away. As soon as a vendor starts rambling on about value-added IP blocks, we've already lost.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Andi Kleen wrote: Abstract of a discussion? Interesting concept. Maybe. If you mean abstract of a talk then I think you're wrong. Not sure that abstract of a discussion thing would really work though. It seems a bit contradicting in itself. I was thinking more an abstract as in something that should provide a short summary of the problem and why it should be discussed at KS. I don't think papers etc. would do any good at this level. Something specifically targetted at KS. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
> Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the > people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case > there's really little concrete that can come out of the discussion. Nobody claimed the committee was perfect. Shit happens. There were also plenty of productive discussions. > Expecting everyone to sit down and get the full picture of a subject > in 5 minutes is unrealistic and will not lead to very useful outcome. If they never heard of the issue before they are unlikely to be useful in the discussion even after an hour of talk. That is not how it works again. > Of course, thats why I suggested more like an abstract published in > advance, like why is this subject worthy and what would the person > like to achieve by having it discussed. Hopefully with some technical > ideas included. Abstract of a discussion? Interesting concept. Maybe. If you mean abstract of a talk then I think you're wrong. Not sure that abstract of a discussion thing would really work though. It seems a bit contradicting in itself. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Andi Kleen wrote: Next is the issue of subjects. Last year the final list came out a few days before the summit started, making it impossible for people who were not attending the summit to prepare material for those attending to present/include on their behalf. I think you completely miss the point of KS here. It is not the venue for someone presenting long material on something and "selling" it, but for free discussion on specific topics. That is why the invitee list is so closely controlled to make sure these productions are productive. Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case there's really little concrete that can come out of the discussion. Expecting everyone to sit down and get the full picture of a subject in 5 minutes is unrealistic and will not lead to very useful outcome. If there are any presentations they should be very short and merely be a quick intro -- anything elaborate is not really welcome. That's quite different from other conferences. Of course, thats why I suggested more like an abstract published in advance, like why is this subject worthy and what would the person like to achieve by having it discussed. Hopefully with some technical ideas included. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:51:00AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > I'm not too bothered about the subjects, but rather the issue that we > keep seeing this strict "only this small group, which defines the most > important people in the community" thing. I don't think it's intentionally meant to come across that way. Not being invited to kernel-summit shouldn't be interpreted as "you're not good enough" in any way or form. True, but unfortunately the KS has gotten itself a real bad reputation for being a closed club of the same people meeting year after year. If this is warranted or not is open to discussion, but at least thats the general message I get when I talk to people and the subject of KS is brought up. When Jon posted how the selection process worked last year a few people (yourself included iirc) brought up concerns, but it seems no-one has any real answers on how to improve things beyond the status quo. In this case I think Andrew's suggestion of trying to twist it more towards the traditional conference style would be worth investigating. The other issue here is that at least historically it has felt a bit like pounding sand when anyone trying to state that the summit wasn't working too well as it has been operating the last couple of years. It hasn't gotten easier by us shrinking in size slightly each year too. This has both positive and negative points. Yes, more people are going to get left out, but there's a point where so many voices in a room just becomes uncontrollable, especially when it's a room full of people with strong opinions. A number of people mentioned last year that the level of interaction during the sessions seemed higher than ever, with less people staring at laptops, and actually getting involved in what was happening in the room. I strongly believe that the lower head count was responsible for this. Well laptops are a problem, but I think some of this can be addressed mostly at the on-site level. The other problem is often that people are not interested or prepared for a given subject and therefore ignore it. I think the requirement of having an abstract submitted in advance could help here too. The one solution (well, in part) to the lower headcount last year was the addition of the mini-summits. If we had invited all the power management guys, all the networking guys, all the wireless guys etc etc we would probably have doubled in size. In future I wouldn't be surprised if these specialised summits happen more often. Even the mini summits have the problem of being selective and some projects are more likely to be included than others. For some projects it's a lot more clear that there's a specific lead on it, whereas others, such as file systems it's many very different projects in parallel with different requirements. That said, I think using the KS as more of an overall architecture handling summit and leaving more specifics to the mini summits is a good way to go. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:11:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote: > > > Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember > > any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. > > No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And there was a presentation on PPC. > > But that was planned to be differently with more focus on embedded, > unfortunately the comittee didn't manage to find more embedded CPU > people in time. given we barely had enough time for freescale, perhaps that was for the best. > My personal preference would be to go for a chipset panel this year > instead. Chipsets seem to impact kernels much more than CPUs. That could be interesting. I wonder if its worth doing both ? Depends if enough people are bored with CPU panels I guess :) Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:51:00AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > I'm not too bothered about the subjects, but rather the issue that we > keep seeing this strict "only this small group, which defines the most > important people in the community" thing. I don't think it's intentionally meant to come across that way. Not being invited to kernel-summit shouldn't be interpreted as "you're not good enough" in any way or form. > Thats where I think the > current model fails, even if someone has done a lot of work all over > Linux for years, doesn't mean said people are the ones driving things > this year. Right. I see your point, and attendance shouldn't be solely down to a "what have you done for me lately?" decision, which is why there are additional criteria. That still doesn't make the process perfect, but we're open to good solutions to solve the problem of trying to pick 80 or so people out of the hundreds of developers that make the first pass. When Jon posted how the selection process worked last year a few people (yourself included iirc) brought up concerns, but it seems no-one has any real answers on how to improve things beyond the status quo. It hasn't gotten easier by us shrinking in size slightly each year too. This has both positive and negative points. Yes, more people are going to get left out, but there's a point where so many voices in a room just becomes uncontrollable, especially when it's a room full of people with strong opinions. A number of people mentioned last year that the level of interaction during the sessions seemed higher than ever, with less people staring at laptops, and actually getting involved in what was happening in the room. I strongly believe that the lower head count was responsible for this. The one solution (well, in part) to the lower headcount last year was the addition of the mini-summits. If we had invited all the power management guys, all the networking guys, all the wireless guys etc etc we would probably have doubled in size. In future I wouldn't be surprised if these specialised summits happen more often. Perhaps one day even negating the need for kernel summit at all (unless it becomes two days of wrap ups and cpu architect roadmaps), well, maybe not, but hopefully it'll help at least partially address the concerns of developers who didn't get to be at the kernel summit. > Personally I think Andrew's suggestion is really good, turning it more > towards the traditional conference means people who have something they > want to say are more likely to push for things. It may indeed have merit. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 05:51 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > So far though, there's been nothing proposed at all, so feel free > > to throw your hat in the ring, if nothing else, it'll kickstart > > the process. > > Actually I'm in the process of investigating launching a mini summit > cabal, which I think would cover most of my current issues :) Actually, perhaps we should track these more closely. At the moment we have mini summits in Networking Wireless Filesystems Storage Power Management And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move them on to a more templated basis (so anyone wishing to organise one would know whom to go to for these things). James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote: > Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember > any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And there was a presentation on PPC. But that was planned to be differently with more focus on embedded, unfortunately the comittee didn't manage to find more embedded CPU people in time. My personal preference would be to go for a chipset panel this year instead. Chipsets seem to impact kernels much more than CPUs. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
> Next is the issue of subjects. Last year the final list came out a few > days before the summit started, making it impossible for people who were > not attending the summit to prepare material for those attending to > present/include on their behalf. I think you completely miss the point of KS here. It is not the venue for someone presenting long material on something and "selling" it, but for free discussion on specific topics. That is why the invitee list is so closely controlled to make sure these productions are productive. If there are any presentations they should be very short and merely be a quick intro -- anything elaborate is not really welcome. That's quite different from other conferences. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Greg Ungerer wrote: Dave Jones wrote: Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Which is good, provided that non-mmu work is actively driving some of the decisions in mainline. Given that I don't follow the non-mmu work at all, I don't have a feel for whether that is the case, but I could imagine that it would have some impact that needs to be taken into account at times. My worry is for spending time and slots on things / people dealing with classic architectures which are no longer being manufactured and are only being maintained in catch-up mode. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should > focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. > x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, > m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Hi Dave, I'm not too bothered about the subjects, but rather the issue that we keep seeing this strict "only this small group, which defines the most important people in the community" thing. Thats where I think the current model fails, even if someone has done a lot of work all over Linux for years, doesn't mean said people are the ones driving things this year. Personally I think Andrew's suggestion is really good, turning it more towards the traditional conference means people who have something they want to say are more likely to push for things. If one doesn't have something to say, then going to the KS is probably not the right thing. One of the problems with this approach is sometimes we don't know about subjects that become important to us all until the last minute, and others that seem important now will become moot by the time the summit comes around. Thats true, and there should certainly be space for new subjects coming in on short notice. However, I would suggest that at least a significant portion of the summit applies this requirement. Most of the more important issues are architectural and it's often not something that shows up last minute. So far though, there's been nothing proposed at all, so feel free to throw your hat in the ring, if nothing else, it'll kickstart the process. Actually I'm in the process of investigating launching a mini summit cabal, which I think would cover most of my current issues :) Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:08:26PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > Dave Jones wrote: > > >Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember > > >any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. > > > > Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? > > > Similarly, it would be nice if we could avoid marketing oriented CPU > roadmap presentations this year, before any other vendors start > getting ideas.. It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually a fairly popular session, so I'd be surprised if it got dropped). something along the lines of Do: - Detail what new features next-gen cpu out in Q1'08 will have that we may need to care about - Ask for input on what features _we_ would like in CPUs in Q1 2010 - Tell us how we're taking advantage of things before that other OS, it makes us happy ;) Don't: - Waffle about process shrink roadmaps. Whilst it's good to hear, it doesn't affect the code we write. - Moves to new substrates are fascinating to CPU manufacturers, not so much for kernel engineers. - If something can't be discussed other than under NDA, don't bother bringing it up. Those interested will likely find out about it through their employers anyway. This came up last year with a number of "we can't tell you" reponses, which made one presentation almost worthless. or perhaps it was particularly "we can't tell hch" :-) Any others? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > > > Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or > > > > sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. > > > > > > Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k > > > for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much > > > contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. > > > > Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember > > any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. > > Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? I thought there was coldfire mentioned too, or maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. Maybe I'm misremembering the ppc bit. Your right, the person from Freescale did mention it. Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > > > Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or > > > > sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. > > > > > > Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k > > > for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much > > > contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. > > > > Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember > > any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. > > Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? I thought there was coldfire mentioned too, or maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. Maybe I'm misremembering the ppc bit. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should > focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. > x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, > m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Regards Greg Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > Dave Jones wrote: > >Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember > >any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. > > Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? > Similarly, it would be nice if we could avoid marketing oriented CPU roadmap presentations this year, before any other vendors start getting ideas.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > Dave Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should > > > focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. > > > x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, > > > m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . > > > > Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or > > sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. > > Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k > for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much > contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > Dave Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should > > > focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. > > > x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, > > > m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . > > > > Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or > > sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. > > Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k > for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much > contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should > focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. > x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, > m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Regards Greg Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > Dave Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: > > > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should > > > focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. > > > x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, > > > m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . > > > > Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or > > sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. > > Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k > for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much > contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Regards Greg Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: Dave Jones wrote: Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? Similarly, it would be nice if we could avoid marketing oriented CPU roadmap presentations this year, before any other vendors start getting ideas.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? I thought there was coldfire mentioned too, or maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. Maybe I'm misremembering the ppc bit. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Regards Greg Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? I thought there was coldfire mentioned too, or maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. Maybe I'm misremembering the ppc bit. Your right, the person from Freescale did mention it. Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SnapGear -- a Secure Computing Company PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:08:26PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: Dave Jones wrote: Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it? Similarly, it would be nice if we could avoid marketing oriented CPU roadmap presentations this year, before any other vendors start getting ideas.. It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually a fairly popular session, so I'd be surprised if it got dropped). something along the lines of Do: - Detail what new features next-gen cpu out in Q1'08 will have that we may need to care about - Ask for input on what features _we_ would like in CPUs in Q1 2010 - Tell us how we're taking advantage of things before that other OS, it makes us happy ;) Don't: - Waffle about process shrink roadmaps. Whilst it's good to hear, it doesn't affect the code we write. - Moves to new substrates are fascinating to CPU manufacturers, not so much for kernel engineers. - If something can't be discussed other than under NDA, don't bother bringing it up. Those interested will likely find out about it through their employers anyway. This came up last year with a number of we can't tell you reponses, which made one presentation almost worthless. or perhaps it was particularly we can't tell hch :-) Any others? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode. x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days, m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so . Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Hi Dave, I'm not too bothered about the subjects, but rather the issue that we keep seeing this strict only this small group, which defines the most important people in the community thing. Thats where I think the current model fails, even if someone has done a lot of work all over Linux for years, doesn't mean said people are the ones driving things this year. Personally I think Andrew's suggestion is really good, turning it more towards the traditional conference means people who have something they want to say are more likely to push for things. If one doesn't have something to say, then going to the KS is probably not the right thing. One of the problems with this approach is sometimes we don't know about subjects that become important to us all until the last minute, and others that seem important now will become moot by the time the summit comes around. Thats true, and there should certainly be space for new subjects coming in on short notice. However, I would suggest that at least a significant portion of the summit applies this requirement. Most of the more important issues are architectural and it's often not something that shows up last minute. So far though, there's been nothing proposed at all, so feel free to throw your hat in the ring, if nothing else, it'll kickstart the process. Actually I'm in the process of investigating launching a mini summit cabal, which I think would cover most of my current issues :) Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Greg Ungerer wrote: Dave Jones wrote: Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented. Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There just wasn't much contentious stuff in that space that needed wider discussion. Which is good, provided that non-mmu work is actively driving some of the decisions in mainline. Given that I don't follow the non-mmu work at all, I don't have a feel for whether that is the case, but I could imagine that it would have some impact that needs to be taken into account at times. My worry is for spending time and slots on things / people dealing with classic architectures which are no longer being manufactured and are only being maintained in catch-up mode. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Next is the issue of subjects. Last year the final list came out a few days before the summit started, making it impossible for people who were not attending the summit to prepare material for those attending to present/include on their behalf. I think you completely miss the point of KS here. It is not the venue for someone presenting long material on something and selling it, but for free discussion on specific topics. That is why the invitee list is so closely controlled to make sure these productions are productive. If there are any presentations they should be very short and merely be a quick intro -- anything elaborate is not really welcome. That's quite different from other conferences. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote: Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And there was a presentation on PPC. But that was planned to be differently with more focus on embedded, unfortunately the comittee didn't manage to find more embedded CPU people in time. My personal preference would be to go for a chipset panel this year instead. Chipsets seem to impact kernels much more than CPUs. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 05:51 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: So far though, there's been nothing proposed at all, so feel free to throw your hat in the ring, if nothing else, it'll kickstart the process. Actually I'm in the process of investigating launching a mini summit cabal, which I think would cover most of my current issues :) Actually, perhaps we should track these more closely. At the moment we have mini summits in Networking Wireless Filesystems Storage Power Management And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move them on to a more templated basis (so anyone wishing to organise one would know whom to go to for these things). James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:51:00AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: I'm not too bothered about the subjects, but rather the issue that we keep seeing this strict only this small group, which defines the most important people in the community thing. I don't think it's intentionally meant to come across that way. Not being invited to kernel-summit shouldn't be interpreted as you're not good enough in any way or form. Thats where I think the current model fails, even if someone has done a lot of work all over Linux for years, doesn't mean said people are the ones driving things this year. Right. I see your point, and attendance shouldn't be solely down to a what have you done for me lately? decision, which is why there are additional criteria. That still doesn't make the process perfect, but we're open to good solutions to solve the problem of trying to pick 80 or so people out of the hundreds of developers that make the first pass. When Jon posted how the selection process worked last year a few people (yourself included iirc) brought up concerns, but it seems no-one has any real answers on how to improve things beyond the status quo. It hasn't gotten easier by us shrinking in size slightly each year too. This has both positive and negative points. Yes, more people are going to get left out, but there's a point where so many voices in a room just becomes uncontrollable, especially when it's a room full of people with strong opinions. A number of people mentioned last year that the level of interaction during the sessions seemed higher than ever, with less people staring at laptops, and actually getting involved in what was happening in the room. I strongly believe that the lower head count was responsible for this. The one solution (well, in part) to the lower headcount last year was the addition of the mini-summits. If we had invited all the power management guys, all the networking guys, all the wireless guys etc etc we would probably have doubled in size. In future I wouldn't be surprised if these specialised summits happen more often. Perhaps one day even negating the need for kernel summit at all (unless it becomes two days of wrap ups and cpu architect roadmaps), well, maybe not, but hopefully it'll help at least partially address the concerns of developers who didn't get to be at the kernel summit. Personally I think Andrew's suggestion is really good, turning it more towards the traditional conference means people who have something they want to say are more likely to push for things. It may indeed have merit. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:11:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote: Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And there was a presentation on PPC. But that was planned to be differently with more focus on embedded, unfortunately the comittee didn't manage to find more embedded CPU people in time. given we barely had enough time for freescale, perhaps that was for the best. My personal preference would be to go for a chipset panel this year instead. Chipsets seem to impact kernels much more than CPUs. That could be interesting. I wonder if its worth doing both ? Depends if enough people are bored with CPU panels I guess :) Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Dave Jones wrote: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:51:00AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: I'm not too bothered about the subjects, but rather the issue that we keep seeing this strict only this small group, which defines the most important people in the community thing. I don't think it's intentionally meant to come across that way. Not being invited to kernel-summit shouldn't be interpreted as you're not good enough in any way or form. True, but unfortunately the KS has gotten itself a real bad reputation for being a closed club of the same people meeting year after year. If this is warranted or not is open to discussion, but at least thats the general message I get when I talk to people and the subject of KS is brought up. When Jon posted how the selection process worked last year a few people (yourself included iirc) brought up concerns, but it seems no-one has any real answers on how to improve things beyond the status quo. In this case I think Andrew's suggestion of trying to twist it more towards the traditional conference style would be worth investigating. The other issue here is that at least historically it has felt a bit like pounding sand when anyone trying to state that the summit wasn't working too well as it has been operating the last couple of years. It hasn't gotten easier by us shrinking in size slightly each year too. This has both positive and negative points. Yes, more people are going to get left out, but there's a point where so many voices in a room just becomes uncontrollable, especially when it's a room full of people with strong opinions. A number of people mentioned last year that the level of interaction during the sessions seemed higher than ever, with less people staring at laptops, and actually getting involved in what was happening in the room. I strongly believe that the lower head count was responsible for this. Well laptops are a problem, but I think some of this can be addressed mostly at the on-site level. The other problem is often that people are not interested or prepared for a given subject and therefore ignore it. I think the requirement of having an abstract submitted in advance could help here too. The one solution (well, in part) to the lower headcount last year was the addition of the mini-summits. If we had invited all the power management guys, all the networking guys, all the wireless guys etc etc we would probably have doubled in size. In future I wouldn't be surprised if these specialised summits happen more often. Even the mini summits have the problem of being selective and some projects are more likely to be included than others. For some projects it's a lot more clear that there's a specific lead on it, whereas others, such as file systems it's many very different projects in parallel with different requirements. That said, I think using the KS as more of an overall architecture handling summit and leaving more specifics to the mini summits is a good way to go. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Andi Kleen wrote: Next is the issue of subjects. Last year the final list came out a few days before the summit started, making it impossible for people who were not attending the summit to prepare material for those attending to present/include on their behalf. I think you completely miss the point of KS here. It is not the venue for someone presenting long material on something and selling it, but for free discussion on specific topics. That is why the invitee list is so closely controlled to make sure these productions are productive. Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case there's really little concrete that can come out of the discussion. Expecting everyone to sit down and get the full picture of a subject in 5 minutes is unrealistic and will not lead to very useful outcome. If there are any presentations they should be very short and merely be a quick intro -- anything elaborate is not really welcome. That's quite different from other conferences. Of course, thats why I suggested more like an abstract published in advance, like why is this subject worthy and what would the person like to achieve by having it discussed. Hopefully with some technical ideas included. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case there's really little concrete that can come out of the discussion. Nobody claimed the committee was perfect. Shit happens. There were also plenty of productive discussions. Expecting everyone to sit down and get the full picture of a subject in 5 minutes is unrealistic and will not lead to very useful outcome. If they never heard of the issue before they are unlikely to be useful in the discussion even after an hour of talk. That is not how it works again. Of course, thats why I suggested more like an abstract published in advance, like why is this subject worthy and what would the person like to achieve by having it discussed. Hopefully with some technical ideas included. Abstract of a discussion? Interesting concept. Maybe. If you mean abstract of a talk then I think you're wrong. Not sure that abstract of a discussion thing would really work though. It seems a bit contradicting in itself. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
Andi Kleen wrote: Abstract of a discussion? Interesting concept. Maybe. If you mean abstract of a talk then I think you're wrong. Not sure that abstract of a discussion thing would really work though. It seems a bit contradicting in itself. I was thinking more an abstract as in something that should provide a short summary of the problem and why it should be discussed at KS. I don't think papers etc. would do any good at this level. Something specifically targetted at KS. Cheers, Jes - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:11:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote: Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all. No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And there was a presentation on PPC. But that was planned to be differently with more focus on embedded, unfortunately the comittee didn't manage to find more embedded CPU people in time. It might be interesting to have a more condensed CPU panel, something like the OLS lightning talks. Gather a larger number of vendors, and give each a small window to bring up the most relevant issues for them in the future, while also allowing for some feedback and QA. It would be nice to get more input from CPU architects, but only if it's possible to keep it entirely technical and moving along without anyone having to hurry their window of time due to someone else overstepping theirs. If they only have a small window to present their concerns, I think we'll see a lot of the fluff (as itemized by davej) go away. As soon as a vendor starts rambling on about value-added IP blocks, we've already lost.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:51:51AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote: Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case there's really little concrete that can come out of the discussion. Likewise IOMMUs. I think Andrew's suggestion of adding a CFP phase to KS is excellent - get some new blood in the room and spice up the discussion. Cheers, Muli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
