[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240728111826.GA30973@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 14:18:26 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jgg@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Device Passthrough Considered Harmful?
Hi Dan,
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 05:16:08PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > I know this is a topic proposed for the maintainers summit, but given
> > the number of people who seem to have an opinion and be interested in
> > dicussing it, would a session at LPC be a better candidate ? I don't
> > expect the maintainer summit to invite all relevant experts from all
> > subsystems, that would likely overflow the room.
> >
> > The downside of an LPC session is that it could easily turn into a
> > heated stage fight, and there are probably also quite a few arguments
> > that can't really be made in the open :-S
>
> A separate LPC session for a subsystem or set of subsystems to explore
> local passthrough policy makes sense, but that is not the primary
> motivation for also requesting a Maintainer Summit topic slot. The
> primary motivation is discussing the provenance and navigation of
> cross-subsystem NAKs especially in an environment where the lines
> between net, mem, and storage are increasingly blurry at the device
> level.
Would there be enough space at the maintainers' summit for all the
relevant people to join the discussion ?
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists