Re: Fostering linux community collaboration on hardware accelerators

From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
To: Andrew Donnellan <andrew.donnellan@au1.ibm.com>
Cc: <jic23@kernel.org>, "Liguozhu (Kenneth)" <liguozhu@hisilicon.com>,
	"Ilias Apalodimas" <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
	<francois.ozog@linaro.org>, <Prasad.Athreya@cavium.com>,
	<arndbergmann@gmail.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	Frederic Barrat <fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	<Tirumalesh.Chalamarla@cavium.com>, <jcm@redhat.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	"Jean-Philippe Brucker" <jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com>,
	Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
	Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>, <linuxarm@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: Fostering linux community collaboration on hardware accelerators
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:07:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171016150701.00004260@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <07d49485-e583-8434-5681-92a0b54005ca@au1.ibm.com>

<snip>

> > So as ever with a linux community focusing on a particular topic, the
> > obvious solution is a mailing list. There are a number of options on how
> > do this.
> > 
> > 1) Ask one of the industry bodies to host? Who?
> > 
> > 2) Put together a compelling argument for linux-accelerators@vger.kernel.org
> > as probably the most generic location for such a list.  
> 
> Happy to offer linux-accelerators@lists.ozlabs.org, which I can get set 
> up immediately (and if we want patchwork, patchwork.ozlabs.org is 
> available as always, no matter where the list is hosted).
> 

That would be great! Thanks for doing this. Much easier to find out what
such a list is useful for by the practical option of having a list and
see what people do with it.

Thanks,

Jonathan
> > More open questions are
> > 1) Scope?
> >   * Would anyone ever use such an overarching list?
> >   * Are we better off with the usual adhoc list of 'interested parties' + lkml?
> >   * Do we actually need to define the full scope - are we better with a vague
> >     definition?  
> 
> I think a list with a broad and vaguely defined scope is a good idea - 
> it would certainly be helpful to us to be able to follow what other 
> contributors are doing that could be relevant to our CAPI and OpenCAPI work.
> 
> > 
> > 2) Is there an existing community we can use to discuss these issues?
> >     (beyond the obvious firehose of LKML).
> > 
> > 3) Who else to approach for input on these general questions?
> > 
> > In parallel to this there are elements such as git / patchwork etc but
> > they can all be done as they are needed.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > --
> > Jonathan Cameron
> > Huawei
> >   
> 