From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: "Kevin Hilman" Subject: Re: plumbers session on CI and LLVM In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 09:19:27 -0700 Message-ID: <7h36603blc.fsf@baylibre.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-ID: To: Nick Desaulniers Cc: kernelci@groups.io, Chen Rong , Philip Li , Dan Rue , clang-built-linux , Mathieu Acher , Steven Rostedt , Sasha Levin Nick Desaulniers writes: > Hi Kevin and folks, > I'm trying to put together a Micro Conference for plumbers focused on > LLVM. In particular, I'd like to have a session that focuses on > Continuous Integration (KernelCI, 0day bot, tuxbuild, kernel > configuration space, and LLVM buildbots). > > I'm curious, are you all planning on attending the conference? Yes, I plan to attend and most KernelCI folks will be there as well as we'll have a few topics at the testing/fuzzing microconf. > If so, would such a session be of interest to attend or speak at? Yes. > I saw the testing MC has already been approved and that Kevin and > Sasha are the leads. I'm still working on the approval for our MC so > it may not happen ultimately, but I still would like to have such a > session regardless of which MC it's in. > > Do folks who are planning to attend such a session have thoughts on > whether we can carve this out of the existing testing MC vs keep it in > the LLVM MC, or even if it is of value or not? If you don't get your approved, feel free to submit to testing/fuzzing, but it looks to me that doing so would limit the scope of topics you want to discuss. It sounds to me like you have enough non-CI topics for your own MC. > One thing I'm curious is what happens for two concurrent MCs if leads > need to attend both? Maybe the conference committee can help us avoid > such scheduling contention? When you submit your MC you can request to be scheduled separately from testing/fuzzing so we can attend both. Kevin