On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 02:54:55PM +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > Hi, > > > > thanks for the update. > > > > > The live patching microconference at LPC in Vancouver is scheduled for > > > Nov 15, Thursday afternoon, from 2:00PM-4:45PM. > > > > > > With a 30 minute conference break in the middle, we only have 2 hours > > > and 15 minutes of scheduled time. Similar to previous years, we have a > > > lot of topics to cover in a short amount of time. > > > > > > For everyone planning to attend this year, please review the following > > > (tentative) schedule: > > > > > > https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/2/timetable/?view=lpc > > > > > > I did my best to fit everything in. I gave each topic a 15 minute slot, > > > except for arch support, which got 30 minutes (10 minutes per arch). > > > > > > Our goal is to maximize discussions and minimize "presenting". Jiri has > > > proposed a 0-1 slide rule: all presenters only prepare a single slide > > > (or even no slides). > > > > > > I'm happy to shrink/add time to different topics as needed. Or if you > > > don't think a topic is worth discussing, we can drop it to give more > > > time elsewhere. > > > > > > And of course, during the session, if a topic ends early, we can move on > > > to the next one ahead of schedule. > > > > > > Any thoughts/comments/suggestions? > > > > Yes, I have a slightly different proposal. > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. > > Funnily enough, I already tried to organize it how you suggest: with the > pre-break session for topics which I anticipated would have more > discussion. > > My thinking was that some of the "newer" topics would generate more > discussion. Whereas arch support would be more of a status update which > has already been discussed in detail on the mailing lists. But it's > really a guessing game to a certain degree. It is. > > There are four important topics which need to be discussed in my opinion > > (and it is important to stress out "my opinion"). > > > > - GCC optimizations. We can connect it with "live patch creation tooling" > > probably. > > Yeah, it does make sense to bundle these together. > > > - Arch support - s390 consistency model, arm64 support, powerpc objtool > > What needs to be discussed for arch support, other than a summary of > what has already been discussed on the lists? If there were s390, arm64 and powerpc maintainers, we could talk to them about objtool and reliable stacktraces in person. If I am not mistaken, Joe analyzed s390 and came to a conclusion that it should be ok. Powerpc is reliable, objtool might be "nice to have". We don't know about arm64 yet. And if there's time (ehm), we can even talk about objtool and how to make it more arch-independent. > > - Livepatch callback state management > > - Livepatch is too flexible > > Agreed that these two topics may generate some good discussion. > > > Then there are two topics which look more like presentations and it would > > definitely be interesting to have them. > > > > - User space live patching (libpulp) > > I don't know anything about this topic other than its title, but I would > expect there to potentially be a *lot* of discussion, considering the > broad scope of user space live patching. Joao has a proof of concept as far as I know. I expect he could give us a presentation. Joao, what's your intention? > > - eLivepatch > > This is also something "new" which could generate more discussion, IMO. > But maybe not as much as the other topics. > > > I did not forget about Jason's slot. I just don't know where to include > > it, because although there was email about it I still don't understand > > what it is about. It could go to the first group as well as to the second. > > Jason can correct me, but I think the idea is, would it make sense to > have upstream livepatch "streams" which mirror the stable trees. > Another "new" idea, I can imagine a lot of discussion there. Ok. so... > > Now, I'd split the time to two slots. One about 1:45 hour long for > > the first group of topics. The rest for the second group. > > The LPC people have recommended that we have a 30 minute break from > 2:30-3:00, because that's when the snacks will be there. If we follow > that guideline, the first slot is 1.5 hours, and the 2nd slot is 45 > minutes. ...in the end we can have two discussion slots with a break in between. > That said, I'm ok with shortening or moving the break if we need to. > > > We can easily decide if a discussion is fruitful, or not and then move > > to a next topic. I think it could be better than fixed time slots. > > I definitely agree that we should be flexible, and skip ahead (or fall > behind) the schedule as needed. However, IMO, the fixed time slots > would still be useful to help us know whether we're ahead or behind > schedule at any given time. What do others think? Agreed. Miroslav
