On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:55:08AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:19:39PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > Just wanted to suggest to push HMM status down one slot in the > > agenda to avoid having FS and MM first going into their own > > room and then merging back for GUP and DAX, and re-splitting > > after. More over HMM and NUMA talks will be good to have back > > to back as they deal with same kind of thing mostly. > > So while we are talking about schedule suggestions, we see that > there's lots of empty slots in the FS track. We (xfs guys) were just > chatting on #xfs about whether we'd have time to have a "XFS devel > meeting" at some point during LSF/MM as we are rarely in the same > place at the same time. > > I'd like to propose that we compact the fs sessions so that we get a > 3-slot session reserved for "Individual filesystem discussions" one > afternoon. That way we've got time in the schedule for the all the > ext4/btrfs/XFS/NFS/CIFS devs to get together with each other and > talk about things of interest only to their own fileystems. > > That means we all don't have to find time outside the schedule to do > this, and think this wold be time very well spent for most fs people > at the conf.... Oh can i get one more small slot for fs ? I want to ask if they are any people against having a callback everytime a struct file is added to a task_struct and also having a secondary array so that special file like device file can store something opaque per task_struct per struct file. I will try to stich a patchset tomorrow for that. A lot of device driver would like to have this. Cheers, Jérôme
