On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 07:16 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 03/29/2011 12:36 AM, James Bottomley wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Since LSF is less than a week away, the programme committee put together > > a just in time preliminary agenda for LSF. As you can see there is > > still plenty of empty space, which you can make suggestions (to this > > list with appropriate general list cc's) for filling: > > > > https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?hl=en&hl=en&key=0AiQMl7GcVa7OdFdNQzM5UDRXUnVEbHlYVmZUVHQ2amc&output=html > > > > If you don't make suggestions, the programme committee will feel > > empowered to make arbitrary assignments based on your topic and attendee > > email requests ... > > > > We're still not quite sure what rooms we will have at the Kabuki, but > > we'll add them to the spreadsheet when we know (they should be close to > > each other). > > > > The spreadsheet above also gives contact information for all the > > attendees and the programme committee. > > > > Yours, > > > > James Bottomley > > on behalf of LSF/MM Programme Committee > > > > Here are a few topic ideas: > > (1) The first topic that might span IO & FS tracks (or just pull in device > mapper people to an FS track) could be adding new commands that would allow > users to grow/shrink/etc file systems in a generic way. The thought I had was > that we have a reasonable model that we could reuse for these new commands like > mount and mount.fs or fsck and fsck.fs. With btrfs coming down the road, it > could be nice to identify exactly what common operations users want to do and > agree on how to implement them. Alasdair pointed out in the upstream thread that > we had a prototype here in fsadm. > > (2) Very high speed, low latency SSD devices and testing. Have we settled on the > need for these devices to all have block level drivers? For S-ATA or SAS > devices, are there known performance issues that require enhancements in > somewhere in the stack? > > (3) The union mount versus overlayfs debate - pros and cons. What each do well, > what needs doing. Do we want/need both upstream? (Maybe this can get 10 minutes > in Al's VFS session?) > Hi Ric, James and LSF-PC chairs, Beyond my original LSF topic proposal for the next-generation QEMU/KVM Virtio-SCSI target driver here: http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=129706545408966&w=2 The following target mode related topics would be useful for the current attendees with interest in /drivers/target/ code if there is extra room available for local attendance within the IO/storage track. (4) Enabling mixed Target/Initiator mode in existing mainline SCSI LLDs that support HW target mode, and come to an consensus determination for how best to make the SCSI LLD / target fabric driver split when enabling mainline target infrastructure support into existing SCSI LLDs. This code is currently in flight for qla2xxx / tcm_qla2xxx for .40 (Hannes, Christoph, Mike, Qlogic and other LLD maintainers) (5) Driving target configfs group creation from kernel-space via a userspace passthrough using some form of portable / acceptable mainline interface. This is a topic that has been raised on the scsi list for the ibmvscsis target driver for .40, and is going to be useful for other in-flight HW target driver as well. (Tomo-san, Hannes, Mike, James, Joel) Thank you! --nab -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
