[Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[Theodore Y. Ts'o]

This is the draft agenda for the Maintainer's Summit which I and the
program committee have come up with:

12:00 Lunch / CoC: How did we get here report-out / small group discussion
12:30 Code of Conduct: next steps
1:00 Making making stable kernel releases more helpful for community
        distros (Laura Abott)
1:30 API replacement / deprecation (Kees Cook)
2:00 Handling of embargoed security issues (Jiri Kosina)                                           
2:30 TBD
3:00 break
3:30 Deprecation / removal of old hardware support (Arnd Bergmann)
4:00 Guidelines for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (Greg K-H)
4:30 TBD
5:00 Maintainer summit feedback - things that went well; what could be                             
        better (Ted Ts'o)
5:30 Group Photo
6:45 Walk to restaurant
7:00 Maintainer's Summit Dinner

Comments or suggestions are welcome.

Below please find the the current set of attendees.  (There may be a
few sponsored attendees that have not yet registered.)

Andrew Morton
Arnd Bergmann
Chris Mason
Christoph Hellwig
Greg KH
Herbert Xu
James Bottomley
Jiri Kosina
Jonathan Corbet
Kees Cook
Laura Abbott
Linus Torvalds
Marc Zyngier
Mark Brown
Masahiro Yamada
Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Michael Ellerman
Olof Johansson
Palmer Dabbelt
Paul McKenney
Peter Zijlstra
Rafael Wysocki
Sasha Levin
Stephen Boyd
Stephen Rothwell
Steven Rostedt
Takashi Iwai
Theodore Tso
Thomas Gleixner
Will Deacon

					- Ted

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:13 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> This is the draft agenda for the Maintainer's Summit which I and the
> program committee have come up with:
>
> 12:00 Lunch / CoC: How did we get here report-out / small group discussion
> 12:30 Code of Conduct: next steps

CoC is on the agenda and the one subsystem with actual operational
experience with the exact same CoC is not present. And I don't see
anyone else from an external community with real experience (or
someone who does consulting in this area) invited to fill that gap
either.
-Daniel

> 1:00 Making making stable kernel releases more helpful for community
>         distros (Laura Abott)
> 1:30 API replacement / deprecation (Kees Cook)
> 2:00 Handling of embargoed security issues (Jiri Kosina)
> 2:30 TBD
> 3:00 break
> 3:30 Deprecation / removal of old hardware support (Arnd Bergmann)
> 4:00 Guidelines for EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL (Greg K-H)
> 4:30 TBD
> 5:00 Maintainer summit feedback - things that went well; what could be
>         better (Ted Ts'o)
> 5:30 Group Photo
> 6:45 Walk to restaurant
> 7:00 Maintainer's Summit Dinner
>
> Comments or suggestions are welcome.
>
> Below please find the the current set of attendees.  (There may be a
> few sponsored attendees that have not yet registered.)
>
> Andrew Morton
> Arnd Bergmann
> Chris Mason
> Christoph Hellwig
> Greg KH
> Herbert Xu
> James Bottomley
> Jiri Kosina
> Jonathan Corbet
> Kees Cook
> Laura Abbott
> Linus Torvalds
> Marc Zyngier
> Mark Brown
> Masahiro Yamada
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> Michael Ellerman
> Olof Johansson
> Palmer Dabbelt
> Paul McKenney
> Peter Zijlstra
> Rafael Wysocki
> Sasha Levin
> Stephen Boyd
> Stephen Rothwell
> Steven Rostedt
> Takashi Iwai
> Theodore Tso
> Thomas Gleixner
> Will Deacon
>
>                                         - Ted
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss



-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[James Bottomley]

On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 10:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:13 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
> wrote:
> > 
> > This is the draft agenda for the Maintainer's Summit which I and
> > the program committee have come up with:
> > 
> > 12:00 Lunch / CoC: How did we get here report-out / small group
> > discussion
> > 12:30 Code of Conduct: next steps
> 
> CoC is on the agenda and the one subsystem with actual operational
> experience with the exact same CoC is not present.

Given the sudden venue change for the Maintainer summit part, there
were always going to be people who couldn't make it for one reason or
another.  The Kernel Summit is still going ahead, as advertised, in
Vancouver and there's a CoC topic proposed there as well and it will be
open to everyone also going to the Linux Plumbers Conference.

>  And I don't see anyone else from an external community with real
> experience (or someone who does consulting in this area) invited to
> fill that gap either.

I don't buy the narrative that you must be a CoC consultant or
implementor to make a difference.  The kernel communities have been
getting better for a while and several people on the invitee list have
had a lot to do with that.  For me, one of the most gratifying things
to come out of all the fire and fury levelled at us on social media was
that none of the complainers actually had a recent incident to make an
issue of ... everything was at least two years old or older.

James

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[Josh Triplett]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:13:17AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 10:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >  And I don't see anyone else from an external community with real
> > experience (or someone who does consulting in this area) invited to
> > fill that gap either.
> 
> I don't buy the narrative that you must be a CoC consultant or
> implementor to make a difference.

We typically don't make major changes in a specialized domain without
consulting domain experts, to avoid building a solution that won't work
or ignores well-known issues in that domain. We wouldn't go off and
build a virtualization subsystem without consulting virtualization
experts; we wouldn't build a storage subsystem without consulting
storage experts; we wouldn't hack on a license without consulting legal
experts; the same applies here.

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[James Bottomley]

On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 11:00 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:13:17AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 10:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >  And I don't see anyone else from an external community with real
> > > experience (or someone who does consulting in this area) invited
> > > to fill that gap either.
> > 
> > I don't buy the narrative that you must be a CoC consultant or
> > implementor to make a difference.
> 
> We typically don't make major changes in a specialized domain without
> consulting domain experts, to avoid building a solution that won't
> work or ignores well-known issues in that domain. We wouldn't go off
> and build a virtualization subsystem without consulting
> virtualization experts; we wouldn't build a storage subsystem without
> consulting storage experts; we wouldn't hack on a license without
> consulting legal experts; the same applies here.

I notice you carefully cut the part about people who've been active in
helping the kernel in this regard already being present; so we do have
some domain experts ... plus no external ones have actually been
proposed at this point. 

We also don't usually listen deferentially to domain experts ...
spectre and meltdown would be a case in point here.

James

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[Tim.Bird]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bottomley
> 
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 11:00 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:13:17AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 10:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > >  And I don't see anyone else from an external community with real
> > > > experience (or someone who does consulting in this area) invited
> > > > to fill that gap either.
> > >
> > > I don't buy the narrative that you must be a CoC consultant or
> > > implementor to make a difference.
> >
> > We typically don't make major changes in a specialized domain without
> > consulting domain experts, to avoid building a solution that won't
> > work or ignores well-known issues in that domain. We wouldn't go off
> > and build a virtualization subsystem without consulting
> > virtualization experts; we wouldn't build a storage subsystem without
> > consulting storage experts; we wouldn't hack on a license without
> > consulting legal experts; the same applies here.
> 
> I notice you carefully cut the part about people who've been active in
> helping the kernel in this regard already being present;

I think that characterizing Joshes response as having "carefully cut" a section
has a little more implication of mal intent that I'd prefer.  I think you can reiterate
your point about having people there that you consider to be domain experts
present, without this.

> so we do have
> some domain experts ... plus no external ones have actually been
> proposed at this point.

It seemed pretty obvious to me that Daniel was referring to himself
or someone else from the subsystem (DRM?) that's already adopted
the CoC.  But a more explicit recommendation (like a candidate name)
would add clarity to the discussion.

> We also don't usually listen deferentially to domain experts ...
> spectre and meltdown would be a case in point here.

You don't have to be deferential to domain experts to benefit
from their experience.

Having said that, I don't think a short face-to-face session is going
to yield much in the way changes, and the list of invitees was worked
out already over a long period of time.   And as you stated previously
there will be other venues (both face-to-face and online) to add input
to the process.

Personally I don't see much benefit in changing the invitee list at this
point, and some dangers.  Not everyone who wants to be there can. 
That's OK with me.  I'm not invited either.
 -- Tim

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[Josh Triplett]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 06:38:10PM +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Bottomley
> > 
> > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 11:00 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:13:17AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 10:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > >  And I don't see anyone else from an external community with real
> > > > > experience (or someone who does consulting in this area) invited
> > > > > to fill that gap either.
> > > >
> > > > I don't buy the narrative that you must be a CoC consultant or
> > > > implementor to make a difference.
> > >
> > > We typically don't make major changes in a specialized domain without
> > > consulting domain experts, to avoid building a solution that won't
> > > work or ignores well-known issues in that domain. We wouldn't go off
> > > and build a virtualization subsystem without consulting
> > > virtualization experts; we wouldn't build a storage subsystem without
> > > consulting storage experts; we wouldn't hack on a license without
> > > consulting legal experts; the same applies here.
> > 
> > I notice you carefully cut the part about people who've been active in
> > helping the kernel in this regard already being present;
> 
> I think that characterizing Joshes response as having "carefully cut" a section
> has a little more implication of mal intent that I'd prefer.  I think you can reiterate
> your point about having people there that you consider to be domain experts
> present, without this.
> 
> > so we do have
> > some domain experts ... plus no external ones have actually been
> > proposed at this point.
> 
> It seemed pretty obvious to me that Daniel was referring to himself
> or someone else from the subsystem (DRM?) that's already adopted
> the CoC.  But a more explicit recommendation (like a candidate name)
> would add clarity to the discussion.
> 
> > We also don't usually listen deferentially to domain experts ...
> > spectre and meltdown would be a case in point here.
> 
> You don't have to be deferential to domain experts to benefit
> from their experience.
> 
> Having said that, I don't think a short face-to-face session is going
> to yield much in the way changes, and the list of invitees was worked
> out already over a long period of time.   And as you stated previously
> there will be other venues (both face-to-face and online) to add input
> to the process.
> 
> Personally I don't see much benefit in changing the invitee list at this
> point, and some dangers.  Not everyone who wants to be there can. 
> That's OK with me.  I'm not invited either.

Thank you, Tim.

I would agree with Tim's point here: I'm not suggesting changing the
invitee list (other than that I'd hoped to see Daniel going as well),
I'm suggesting that that invitee list is conducive to discussion but not
decision, and that those who are there should treat it accordingly (as a
discussion forum and not a decision forum).

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:48 PM Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 06:38:10PM +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Bottomley
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 11:00 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:13:17AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 10:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > >  And I don't see anyone else from an external community with real
> > > > > > experience (or someone who does consulting in this area) invited
> > > > > > to fill that gap either.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't buy the narrative that you must be a CoC consultant or
> > > > > implementor to make a difference.
> > > >
> > > > We typically don't make major changes in a specialized domain without
> > > > consulting domain experts, to avoid building a solution that won't
> > > > work or ignores well-known issues in that domain. We wouldn't go off
> > > > and build a virtualization subsystem without consulting
> > > > virtualization experts; we wouldn't build a storage subsystem without
> > > > consulting storage experts; we wouldn't hack on a license without
> > > > consulting legal experts; the same applies here.
> > >
> > > I notice you carefully cut the part about people who've been active in
> > > helping the kernel in this regard already being present;
> >
> > I think that characterizing Joshes response as having "carefully cut" a section
> > has a little more implication of mal intent that I'd prefer.  I think you can reiterate
> > your point about having people there that you consider to be domain experts
> > present, without this.
> >
> > > so we do have
> > > some domain experts ... plus no external ones have actually been
> > > proposed at this point.
> >
> > It seemed pretty obvious to me that Daniel was referring to himself
> > or someone else from the subsystem (DRM?) that's already adopted
> > the CoC.  But a more explicit recommendation (like a candidate name)
> > would add clarity to the discussion.
> >
> > > We also don't usually listen deferentially to domain experts ...
> > > spectre and meltdown would be a case in point here.
> >
> > You don't have to be deferential to domain experts to benefit
> > from their experience.
> >
> > Having said that, I don't think a short face-to-face session is going
> > to yield much in the way changes, and the list of invitees was worked
> > out already over a long period of time.   And as you stated previously
> > there will be other venues (both face-to-face and online) to add input
> > to the process.
> >
> > Personally I don't see much benefit in changing the invitee list at this
> > point, and some dangers.  Not everyone who wants to be there can.
> > That's OK with me.  I'm not invited either.
>
> Thank you, Tim.
>
> I would agree with Tim's point here: I'm not suggesting changing the
> invitee list (other than that I'd hoped to see Daniel going as well),
> I'm suggesting that that invitee list is conducive to discussion but not
> decision, and that those who are there should treat it accordingly (as a
> discussion forum and not a decision forum).

Just to clarify: This ain't about me (I'm booked out already anyway),
but there are a bunch of drm people there already anyway for elc. So
it's definitely not a travel logistics issue, and last year there was
a discussion about whom we're going to volunteer instead of Dave.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[James Bottomley]

On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 18:38 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Bottomley
> > 
> > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 11:00 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:13:17AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 10:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > >  And I don't see anyone else from an external community with
> > > > > real experience (or someone who does consulting in this area)
> > > > > invited to fill that gap either.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't buy the narrative that you must be a CoC consultant or
> > > > implementor to make a difference.
> > > 
> > > We typically don't make major changes in a specialized domain
> > > without consulting domain experts, to avoid building a solution
> > > that won't work or ignores well-known issues in that domain. We
> > > wouldn't go off and build a virtualization subsystem without
> > > consulting virtualization experts; we wouldn't build a storage
> > > subsystem without consulting storage experts; we wouldn't hack on
> > > a license without consulting legal experts; the same applies
> > > here.
> > 
> > I notice you carefully cut the part about people who've been active
> > in helping the kernel in this regard already being present;
> 
> I think that characterizing Joshes response as having "carefully cut"
> a section has a little more implication of mal intent that I'd
> prefer.  I think you can reiterate your point about having people
> there that you consider to be domain experts present, without this.

OK, if that was unintentional I apologise for the misinterpretation and
overreaction. I suppose I'm sensitised by the fact that I've seen too
many people spend a huge amount of effort on this for zero recognition.

> > so we do have some domain experts ... plus no external ones have
> > actually been proposed at this point.
> 
> It seemed pretty obvious to me that Daniel was referring to himself
> or someone else from the subsystem (DRM?) that's already adopted
> the CoC.  But a more explicit recommendation (like a candidate name)
> would add clarity to the discussion.
> 
> > We also don't usually listen deferentially to domain experts ...
> > spectre and meltdown would be a case in point here.
> 
> You don't have to be deferential to domain experts to benefit
> from their experience.
> 
> Having said that, I don't think a short face-to-face session is going
> to yield much in the way changes, and the list of invitees was worked
> out already over a long period of time.   And as you stated
> previously there will be other venues (both face-to-face and online)
> to add input to the process.

Agreed, his is why I think the proposed KS/Plumbers session will be far
more important: it's in front of a much wider audience at an open
conference.

James


> Personally I don't see much benefit in changing the invitee list at
> this point, and some dangers.  Not everyone who wants to be there
> can.  That's OK with me.  I'm not invited either.
>  -- Tim
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
> 

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1518 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:13:17AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 10:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:

> >  And I don't see anyone else from an external community with real
> > experience (or someone who does consulting in this area) invited to
> > fill that gap either.

> I don't buy the narrative that you must be a CoC consultant or
> implementor to make a difference.  The kernel communities have been
> getting better for a while and several people on the invitee list have
> had a lot to do with that.  For me, one of the most gratifying things

On the one hand I would completely agree that it's entirely possible to
do a good job of implementing a code of conduct without the involvement
of people who are recognized experts in the field.  On the other hand
codes of conduct are inevitably partly a marketing and confidence
effort, we could write the most excellent code of conduct possible on
paper but if we can't convince people that we're serious then it's not
going to accomplish a huge amount.  This is unfortunately particularly
an issue for the kernel where we have what one might term reputational
challenges to overcome.  Having people involved who are widely regarded
as experts should help quite a bit with that, at the very least helping
us explain what we're doing in a way that makes sense to people.

One of the things we could end up doing at the meeting is deferring some
of the decision for mailing list or other discussion which would give a
space for that to happen.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[Chris Mason]

On 16 Oct 2018, at 14:16, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:13:17AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 10:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
>>>  And I don't see anyone else from an external community with real
>>> experience (or someone who does consulting in this area) invited to
>>> fill that gap either.
>
>> I don't buy the narrative that you must be a CoC consultant or
>> implementor to make a difference.  The kernel communities have been
>> getting better for a while and several people on the invitee list 
>> have
>> had a lot to do with that.  For me, one of the most gratifying things

I hope that maintainers summit and plumbers are just part of our 
continued conversation about all of these issues.  It's really hard to 
setup the perfect set of people in the room when we're still working on 
all of the questions that need to be asked and finding the best set of 
people to work on them.

[ ... ]

>
> One of the things we could end up doing at the meeting is deferring 
> some
> of the decision for mailing list or other discussion which would give 
> a
> space for that to happen.

Strongly agree here.

-chris

[Ksummit-discuss] new topic: regression test infrastructure? (was Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees - )

[Christian Borntraeger]

On 10/16/2018 04:12 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> This is the draft agenda for the Maintainer's Summit which I and the
> program committee have come up with:
> [..] 
> 2:30 TBD
> [..]
> 4:30 TBD

Does it make sense to talk about existing test infrastructure 
(like syzbot,Geert Uytterhoeven and Guenter Roecks reports as well as all the others)
What architectures are missing? Is it ok to run tests in-house and only report errors?
What test scenarios are missing?

Christian

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] new topic: regression test infrastructure? (was Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees - )

[Theodore Y. Ts'o]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:53:06PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/16/2018 04:12 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > This is the draft agenda for the Maintainer's Summit which I and the
> > program committee have come up with:
> > [..] 
> > 2:30 TBD
> > [..]
> > 4:30 TBD
> 
> Does it make sense to talk about existing test infrastructure 
> (like syzbot,Geert Uytterhoeven and Guenter Roecks reports as well as all the others)
> What architectures are missing? Is it ok to run tests in-house and only report errors?
> What test scenarios are missing?

This would probably be better suited at the Kernel Summit track in
Vancouver next month, as there will be a much larger number of kernel
developers there.  The Maintainer's Summit is intended to focus much
more process issues than specific technical questions.

Also, some of these questions are best answered by those who can bring
resources to the table.  For example, it's easy for someone to point
out that some architecture, like Itanium or pa-risc are "missing".
But the people to whom we would need to be having that conversation
would be Intel and HP, respectively, and both would likely say that
those architectures are obscelent, and so they would probably decline
to provide those resources.

Similarly, the question of whether, say, Power, or Z series, or Risc-V
are "missing" are best targetted at the companies which back those
architectures.

					- Ted

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] new topic: regression test infrastructure? (was Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees - )

[Jiri Kosina]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

> Similarly, the question of whether, say, Power, or Z series, or Risc-V 
> are "missing" are best targetted at the companies which back those 
> architectures.

At least for SUSE I can say is that we're going to have a decent 
representation on LPC/KS in Vancouver, and we are one of those who do 
support power and Z series for (part of) living, so this could eventually 
be a useful discussion (especially in case other vendors on the same boat 
are represented there as well).

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] new topic: regression test infrastructure? (was Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees - )

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 04:51:09PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:53:06PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 10/16/2018 04:12 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > > This is the draft agenda for the Maintainer's Summit which I and the
> > > program committee have come up with:
> > > [..] 
> > > 2:30 TBD
> > > [..]
> > > 4:30 TBD
> > 
> > Does it make sense to talk about existing test infrastructure 
> > (like syzbot,Geert Uytterhoeven and Guenter Roecks reports as well as all the others)
> > What architectures are missing? Is it ok to run tests in-house and only report errors?
> > What test scenarios are missing?
> 
> This would probably be better suited at the Kernel Summit track in
> Vancouver next month, as there will be a much larger number of kernel
> developers there.  The Maintainer's Summit is intended to focus much
> more process issues than specific technical questions.
> 

In Edinburgh: https://elinux.org/Automated_Testing_Summit
In Vancouver: https://blog.linuxplumbersconf.org/2018/testing-and-fuzzing-mc/

While is it good to see the increased interest in testing, I am not
sure if it makes sense to add yet another venue to discuss it.

Guenter

> Also, some of these questions are best answered by those who can bring
> resources to the table.  For example, it's easy for someone to point
> out that some architecture, like Itanium or pa-risc are "missing".
> But the people to whom we would need to be having that conversation
> would be Intel and HP, respectively, and both would likely say that
> those architectures are obscelent, and so they would probably decline
> to provide those resources.
> 
> Similarly, the question of whether, say, Power, or Z series, or Risc-V
> are "missing" are best targetted at the companies which back those
> architectures.
> 
> 					- Ted
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] new topic: regression test infrastructure? (was Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees - )

[Theodore Y. Ts'o]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 02:14:46PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> 
> In Edinburgh: https://elinux.org/Automated_Testing_Summit
> In Vancouver: https://blog.linuxplumbersconf.org/2018/testing-and-fuzzing-mc/
> 
> While is it good to see the increased interest in testing, I am not
> sure if it makes sense to add yet another venue to discuss it.

I had forgotten about the Testing and Fuzzing MC at Plumber's.  I
agree that's probably the right place to be having those discussions.
If the miniconference's schedule is already packed full, we could
probably schedule a kernel summit track, but it's probably better to
keep it all at the MC, since all of the right people will hopefully
there.

Cheers,

      	     	      	  	      	 - Ted

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] new topic: regression test infrastructure? (was Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees - )

[Michael Ellerman]

Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 04:51:09PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 09:53:06PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> > 
>> > On 10/16/2018 04:12 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>> > > This is the draft agenda for the Maintainer's Summit which I and the
>> > > program committee have come up with:
>> > > [..] 
>> > > 2:30 TBD
>> > > [..]
>> > > 4:30 TBD
>> > 
>> > Does it make sense to talk about existing test infrastructure 
>> > (like syzbot,Geert Uytterhoeven and Guenter Roecks reports as well as all the others)
>> > What architectures are missing? Is it ok to run tests in-house and only report errors?
>> > What test scenarios are missing?
>> 
>> This would probably be better suited at the Kernel Summit track in
>> Vancouver next month, as there will be a much larger number of kernel
>> developers there.  The Maintainer's Summit is intended to focus much
>> more process issues than specific technical questions.
>> 
>
> In Edinburgh: https://elinux.org/Automated_Testing_Summit

Oh cool, first I've heard of it.

Mind if I drop in? :)

cheers

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] new topic: regression test infrastructure? (was Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees - )

[Tim.Bird]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Ellerman
> 
> Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> writes:
...
> > In Edinburgh: https://elinux.org/Automated_Testing_Summit
> 
> Oh cool, first I've heard of it.
> 
> Mind if I drop in? :)

We have limited space for this summit, and Kevin and I decided to make it invitation
only.  Unfortunately, we've already gone through the invitation process,
and we're trying to keep it small.  So unfortunately, at this point, this is not an
open event.

It will, however, be recorded by the fine folks at Linaro, and we'll try to make
our presentations and discussions available after the event.  I believe that
Kevin Hilman is slated to do a report of the summit at the LPC testing event
(but I might be wrong on that).

My hope is that we'll be able to do a more open automated-testing focused
event in the future.
 -- Tim

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] new topic: regression test infrastructure? (was Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees - )

[Shuah Khan]

On 10/16/2018 07:06 PM, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Ellerman
>>
>> Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> writes:
> ...
>>> In Edinburgh: https://elinux.org/Automated_Testing_Summit
>>
>> Oh cool, first I've heard of it.
>>
>> Mind if I drop in? :)
> 
> We have limited space for this summit, and Kevin and I decided to make it invitation
> only.  Unfortunately, we've already gone through the invitation process,
> and we're trying to keep it small.  So unfortunately, at this point, this is not an
> open event.

Tim! For what its worth, Michael will be a good addition to speak for Kselftest.
I sent you the slide set and information for you to use. It is nothing like having
Michael in the room to talk about common framework which he did the foundation work.

thanks,
-- Shuah