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
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
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
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
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?
> 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
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
> > >>
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
> >>
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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,
> >
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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 .
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.
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
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
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
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?
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
