From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:49:46 +0200 (CEST) From: "Mathieu Acher" Message-ID: <303346284.2414574.1594392586895.JavaMail.zimbra@irisa.fr> In-Reply-To: <7h36603blc.fsf@baylibre.com> References: <7h36603blc.fsf@baylibre.com> Subject: Re: plumbers session on CI and LLVM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-ID: To: khilman Cc: Nick Desaulniers , kernelci@groups.io, Chen Rong , Philip Li , Dan Rue , clang-built-linux , Steven Rostedt , Sasha Levin Hi,=20 I will attend Plumbers and am interested by continuous integration and LLV= M, great initiative.=20 Best,=20 -- Dr. Mathieu ACHER, Associate Professor Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, IRISA, France (DiverSE team) http://www.mathieuacher.com/ ----- Mail original ----- > De: "khilman" > =C0: "Nick Desaulniers" > Cc: kernelci@groups.io, "Chen Rong" , "Philip Li"= , "Dan Rue" > , "clang-built-linux" , "Mathieu Acher" > , "Steven Rostedt" , "Sasha= Levin" > Envoy=E9: Jeudi 9 Juillet 2020 18:19:27 > Objet: Re: plumbers session on CI and LLVM > Nick Desaulniers writes: >=20 >> 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 >> If so, would such a session be of interest to attend or speak at? >=20 > Yes. >=20 >> 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 >> 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? >=20 > When you submit your MC you can request to be scheduled separately from > testing/fuzzing so we can attend both. >=20 > Kevin