linux-ext4 - Re: [LSFMMBPF TOPIC] long live LFSMMBPF

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <76B62C4B-6ECB-482B-BF7D-95F42E43E7EB@fb.com>
Date:   Fri, 06 Mar 2020 14:27:45 -0500
From:   "Chris Mason" <clm@...com>
To:     Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
CC:     lsf-pc <lsf-pc@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LSFMMBPF TOPIC] long live LFSMMBPF

On 6 Mar 2020, at 9:35, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> Many people have suggested this elsewhere, but I think we really need 
> to seriously consider it.  Most of us all go to the Linux Plumbers 
> conference.  We could accomplish our main goals with Plumbers without 
> having to deal with all of the above problems.

I think James and Ted have covered pretty well why Plumbers isn’t a 
great fit, but I agree with the overall idea.

>
> 1) The invitation process.  This goes away.  The people/companies that 
> want to discuss things with the rest of us can all get to plumbers the 
> normal way.  We get new blood that we may miss through the invitation 
> process because they can simply register for Plumbers on their own.
>

Lsfmmmbop has always been most useful when focused on smaller and 
tighter sessions that aren’t well suited to open audiences.  I think 
the BPF and MM sessions are generally really happy with their size and 
level of discussion, while the FS one would benefit from a larger crowd 
split up by project.  This is much easier to do if we’re attached to a 
bigger conference, where the plenary sessions are available to the whole 
conf and the breakout sessions are smaller and completely project 
focused.

I think we’ve outgrown the original name, but I’d still call it 
something, we’ll need rooms and t-shirts and maybe a group event that 
we need to fund.

> 2) Presentations.  We can have track miniconfs where we still curate 
> talks, but there could be much less of them and we could just use the 
> time to do what LSFMMBPF was meant to do, put us all in a room so we 
> can hack on things together.

Agree here, although kernel recipes is a great example of a conf people 
visit for the presentations.

>
> 3) BOFs.  Now all of the xfs/btrfs/ext4 guys can show up, because 
> again they don't have to worry about some invitation process, and now 
> real meetings can happen between people that really want to talk to 
> each other face to face.
>
> 4) Planning becomes much simpler.  I've organized miniconf's at 
> plumbers before, it is far simpler than LSFMMBPF.  You only have to 
> worry about one thing, is this presentation useful.  I no longer have 
> to worry about am I inviting the right people, do we have enough money 
> to cover the space.  Is there enough space for everybody?  Etc.

We’ve talked about working closely with KS, Plumbers and the 
Linuxfoundation to make a big picture map of the content and frequency 
for these confs.  I’m sure Angela is having a busy few weeks, but lets 
work with her to schedule this and talk it through.  OSS is a good fit 
in terms of being flexible enough to fit us in, hopefully we can make 
that work.

-chris