Re: [LSF/MM] schedule suggestion

[Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>]

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,
J�r�me