[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9722d7f691f3aa32c4c725139a99ad49902aacb.camel@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 23:51:45 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "Annapurve, Vishal" <vannapurve@...gle.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com"
<seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "liam.merwick@...cle.com" <liam.merwick@...cle.com>, "Kohler, Jon"
<jon@...anix.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "thomas.lendacky@....com"
<thomas.lendacky@....com>, "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "Amit.Shah@....com" <Amit.Shah@....com>,
"michael.roth@....com" <michael.roth@....com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PUCK Agenda - 2025.06.18 - Any topics?
There are an increasing number of TDX intersecting patchsets flying around or
being alluded to. I was thinking it could help to have a discussion on how they
are all going to come together.
- What parts do we want to do iteratively vs co-designed?
- How to avoid duplicate work like debugging bugs in dependencies that are
already fixed in private?
- What order to do them upstream?
- How to evaluate/test Linux guests for features that don't have qemu support?
- Others?
Of course some of these series' are not TDX specific. But in the TDX neck of the
woods, there seems to be a bit of a gap in common understanding.
Is a TDX focused discussion useful? Could we do it as a PUCK call agenda item?
Thanks,
Rick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists