* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 7:41 ` Rich Persaud
@ 2019-09-05 7:49 ` Lars Kurth
2019-09-05 8:14 ` Andrew Cooper
2019-09-05 7:50 ` Jan Beulich
2019-09-05 7:54 ` Juergen Gross
2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Lars Kurth @ 2019-09-05 7:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rich Persaud, Jan Beulich
Cc: Daniel P. Smith, Doug Goldstein, Julien Grall, anastassios.nanos,
Matt Spencer, edgar.iglesias, John Ji, robin.randhawa,
daniel.kiper, mirela.simonovic, xen-devel, Rian Quinn,
Juergen Gross, Tamas K Lengyel, Christopher Clark, Paul Durrant,
Ian Jackson, vfachin, intel-xen, Jarvis Roach, Artem Mygaiev,
Sergey Dyasli, Brian Woods, Jeff Kubascik, Janakarajan Natarajan,
Stefano Stabellini, Stewart Hildebrand, Volodymyr Babchuk,
Roger Pau Monne
On 05/09/2019, 08:41, "Rich Persaud" <persaur@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 03:19, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> Forgive me asking, but why is this put up as an agenda item here?
> IMO this is the kind of thing where you would send a proposal and
> request feedback by email first, and put it up as an agenda item
> here only if it got stalled there. (Apologies if I've overlooked
> such a stalled thread.)
If Xen community call topics are limited to escalations of xen-devel threads, then a new thread can be created for this topic. Xen community calls have also provided real-time, interactive feedback on candidate proposals, along with guidance on areas which need documentation before a formal proposal is made to xen-devel. Such agenda items are typically covered after all series and priority topics have been addressed.
I don't mind having items such these on the agenda and to be fair have added similar items onto the agenda in the past.
Clearly, they are forward looking [like an RFC], for which reason I tend to add them to the end of an agenda if there is a busy schedule
Personally, on this specific item, it is not really clear what the questions are. In other words: is this about UUIDS/domain ids only, or is there something else.
Lars
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 7:49 ` Lars Kurth
@ 2019-09-05 8:14 ` Andrew Cooper
2019-09-05 8:33 ` Juergen Gross
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cooper @ 2019-09-05 8:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Kurth, Rich Persaud, Jan Beulich
Cc: Daniel P. Smith, Doug Goldstein, Julien Grall, anastassios.nanos,
mirela.simonovic, edgar.iglesias, Janakarajan Natarajan,
robin.randhawa, Artem Mygaiev, daniel.kiper, Matt Spencer,
xen-devel, Rian Quinn, Tamas K Lengyel, Christopher Clark,
Paul Durrant, Ian Jackson, vfachin, intel-xen, Jarvis Roach,
Juergen Gross, Sergey Dyasli, Volodymyr Babchuk, Jeff Kubascik,
John Ji, Stefano Stabellini, Stewart Hildebrand, Brian Woods,
Roger Pau Monne
On 05/09/2019 08:49, Lars Kurth wrote:
> On 05/09/2019, 08:41, "Rich Persaud" <persaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 5, 2019, at 03:19, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > Forgive me asking, but why is this put up as an agenda item here?
> > IMO this is the kind of thing where you would send a proposal and
> > request feedback by email first, and put it up as an agenda item
> > here only if it got stalled there. (Apologies if I've overlooked
> > such a stalled thread.)
>
> If Xen community call topics are limited to escalations of xen-devel threads, then a new thread can be created for this topic. Xen community calls have also provided real-time, interactive feedback on candidate proposals, along with guidance on areas which need documentation before a formal proposal is made to xen-devel. Such agenda items are typically covered after all series and priority topics have been addressed.
>
> I don't mind having items such these on the agenda and to be fair have added similar items onto the agenda in the past.
> Clearly, they are forward looking [like an RFC], for which reason I tend to add them to the end of an agenda if there is a busy schedule
>
> Personally, on this specific item, it is not really clear what the questions are. In other words: is this about UUIDS/domain ids only, or is there something else.
Requiring something to be blocked on xen-devel before we discuss it on
the call is monumentally short sighted, and off-putting for contributors.
In this case, it is very definitely not the first time this problem has
been raised, as it is an XSA shaped elephant in the room. Its no secret
that id wraps cause problems, and while our security policy doesn't
comment on the matter, it also doesn't say "warning - stuff *will* break
in weird, wonderful, and security-relevant ways when domid's wrap".
The order of the agenda is important, and I don't think this should be
at the top, but even if we only end up with 2 minutes to discuss it,
then so be it. (2 minutes of talking can still be far more valuable
than a weeks worth of emailing.)
What is not acceptable is suggesting that it should be veto'd simply
because it is perceived to be a very fresh idea/query.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 8:14 ` Andrew Cooper
@ 2019-09-05 8:33 ` Juergen Gross
2019-09-05 8:36 ` Lars Kurth
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Juergen Gross @ 2019-09-05 8:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper, Lars Kurth, Rich Persaud, Jan Beulich
Cc: Daniel P. Smith, Doug Goldstein, Julien Grall, anastassios.nanos,
Matt Spencer, edgar.iglesias, John Ji, robin.randhawa,
daniel.kiper, mirela.simonovic, xen-devel, Rian Quinn,
Tamas KLengyel, Christopher Clark, Paul Durrant, IanJackson,
vfachin, intel-xen, Jarvis Roach, Artem Mygaiev, Sergey Dyasli,
BrianWoods, Jeff Kubascik, Janakarajan Natarajan,
Stefano Stabellini, Stewart Hildebrand, Volodymyr Babchuk,
Roger Pau Monne
On 05.09.19 10:14, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/09/2019 08:49, Lars Kurth wrote:
>> On 05/09/2019, 08:41, "Rich Persaud" <persaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 5, 2019, at 03:19, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Forgive me asking, but why is this put up as an agenda item here?
>> > IMO this is the kind of thing where you would send a proposal and
>> > request feedback by email first, and put it up as an agenda item
>> > here only if it got stalled there. (Apologies if I've overlooked
>> > such a stalled thread.)
>>
>> If Xen community call topics are limited to escalations of xen-devel threads, then a new thread can be created for this topic. Xen community calls have also provided real-time, interactive feedback on candidate proposals, along with guidance on areas which need documentation before a formal proposal is made to xen-devel. Such agenda items are typically covered after all series and priority topics have been addressed.
>>
>> I don't mind having items such these on the agenda and to be fair have added similar items onto the agenda in the past.
>> Clearly, they are forward looking [like an RFC], for which reason I tend to add them to the end of an agenda if there is a busy schedule
>>
>> Personally, on this specific item, it is not really clear what the questions are. In other words: is this about UUIDS/domain ids only, or is there something else.
>
> Requiring something to be blocked on xen-devel before we discuss it on
> the call is monumentally short sighted, and off-putting for contributors.
>
> In this case, it is very definitely not the first time this problem has
> been raised, as it is an XSA shaped elephant in the room. Its no secret
> that id wraps cause problems, and while our security policy doesn't
> comment on the matter, it also doesn't say "warning - stuff *will* break
> in weird, wonderful, and security-relevant ways when domid's wrap".
>
> The order of the agenda is important, and I don't think this should be
> at the top, but even if we only end up with 2 minutes to discuss it,
> then so be it. (2 minutes of talking can still be far more valuable
> than a weeks worth of emailing.)
>
> What is not acceptable is suggesting that it should be veto'd simply
> because it is perceived to be a very fresh idea/query.
I still think it would help if a short high level design would be posted
on xen-devel first.
At least for me it is much easier to discuss a new idea when I had some
time to think about it. And by having to write it down the one proposing
the idea will have to sort his thoughts and will stumble over potential
problems, instead of everyone on the call having to imagine what he was
thinking and finding the same problems, which might be solved already.
And by having seen a proposal early I can decide to drop off the call in
case I'm not interested. But I might not know whether some areas I'm
interested in might be touched by a new idea before having seen the high
level description.
This is no veto, but just a suggestion how to use the time of all call
attendees more effectively.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 8:33 ` Juergen Gross
@ 2019-09-05 8:36 ` Lars Kurth
2019-09-05 14:48 ` Rich Persaud
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Lars Kurth @ 2019-09-05 8:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juergen Gross, Andrew Cooper, Rich Persaud, Jan Beulich
Cc: Daniel P. Smith, Doug Goldstein, Julien Grall, anastassios.nanos,
Matt Spencer, edgar.iglesias, John Ji, robin.randhawa,
daniel.kiper, mirela.simonovic, xen-devel, Rian Quinn,
Tamas KLengyel, Christopher Clark, Paul Durrant, Ian Jackson,
vfachin, intel-xen, Jarvis Roach, Artem Mygaiev, Sergey Dyasli,
BrianWoods, Jeff Kubascik, Janakarajan Natarajan,
Stefano Stabellini, Stewart Hildebrand, Volodymyr Babchuk,
Roger Pau Monne
On 05/09/2019, 09:33, "Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
On 05.09.19 10:14, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/09/2019 08:49, Lars Kurth wrote:
>> On 05/09/2019, 08:41, "Rich Persaud" <persaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 5, 2019, at 03:19, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Forgive me asking, but why is this put up as an agenda item here?
>> > IMO this is the kind of thing where you would send a proposal and
>> > request feedback by email first, and put it up as an agenda item
>> > here only if it got stalled there. (Apologies if I've overlooked
>> > such a stalled thread.)
>>
>> If Xen community call topics are limited to escalations of xen-devel threads, then a new thread can be created for this topic. Xen community calls have also provided real-time, interactive feedback on candidate proposals, along with guidance on areas which need documentation before a formal proposal is made to xen-devel. Such agenda items are typically covered after all series and priority topics have been addressed.
>>
>> I don't mind having items such these on the agenda and to be fair have added similar items onto the agenda in the past.
>> Clearly, they are forward looking [like an RFC], for which reason I tend to add them to the end of an agenda if there is a busy schedule
>>
>> Personally, on this specific item, it is not really clear what the questions are. In other words: is this about UUIDS/domain ids only, or is there something else.
>
> Requiring something to be blocked on xen-devel before we discuss it on
> the call is monumentally short sighted, and off-putting for contributors.
>
> In this case, it is very definitely not the first time this problem has
> been raised, as it is an XSA shaped elephant in the room. Its no secret
> that id wraps cause problems, and while our security policy doesn't
> comment on the matter, it also doesn't say "warning - stuff *will* break
> in weird, wonderful, and security-relevant ways when domid's wrap".
>
> The order of the agenda is important, and I don't think this should be
> at the top, but even if we only end up with 2 minutes to discuss it,
> then so be it. (2 minutes of talking can still be far more valuable
> than a weeks worth of emailing.)
>
> What is not acceptable is suggesting that it should be veto'd simply
> because it is perceived to be a very fresh idea/query.
I still think it would help if a short high level design would be posted
on xen-devel first.
I think that is a valid point and I agree. In the past when we had similar
discussions often the outcome was not that clear and due to the nature of
the calls the discussions were also not well reflected in the notes.
So, there is an argument, that discussions typically are more productive when
there is the possibility for some preparation or an e-mail thread to refer to.
Lars
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 8:36 ` Lars Kurth
@ 2019-09-05 14:48 ` Rich Persaud
2019-09-05 16:12 ` Lars Kurth
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rich Persaud @ 2019-09-05 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Kurth
Cc: Rian Quinn, Daniel P. Smith, Doug Goldstein, Julien Grall,
Jan Beulich, anastassios.nanos, Matt Spencer, edgar.iglesias,
John Ji, robin.randhawa, daniel.kiper, BrianWoods,
mirela.simonovic, xen-devel, Artem Mygaiev, Tamas KLengyel,
Christopher Clark, Paul Durrant, Ian Jackson, vfachin, intel-xen,
Jarvis Roach, Juergen Gross, Sergey Dyasli, Andrew Cooper,
Jeff Kubascik, Janakarajan Natarajan, Stefano Stabellini,
Stewart Hildebrand, Volodymyr Babchuk, Roger Pau Monne
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3443 bytes --]
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 04:36, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2019, 09:33, "Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05.09.19 10:14, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 05/09/2019 08:49, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>>> On 05/09/2019, 08:41, "Rich Persaud" <persaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 5, 2019, at 03:19, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Forgive me asking, but why is this put up as an agenda item here?
>>>> IMO this is the kind of thing where you would send a proposal and
>>>> request feedback by email first, and put it up as an agenda item
>>>> here only if it got stalled there. (Apologies if I've overlooked
>>>> such a stalled thread.)
>>>
>>> If Xen community call topics are limited to escalations of xen-devel threads, then a new thread can be created for this topic. Xen community calls have also provided real-time, interactive feedback on candidate proposals, along with guidance on areas which need documentation before a formal proposal is made to xen-devel. Such agenda items are typically covered after all series and priority topics have been addressed.
>>>
>>> I don't mind having items such these on the agenda and to be fair have added similar items onto the agenda in the past.
>>> Clearly, they are forward looking [like an RFC], for which reason I tend to add them to the end of an agenda if there is a busy schedule
>>>
>>> Personally, on this specific item, it is not really clear what the questions are. In other words: is this about UUIDS/domain ids only, or is there something else.
>>
>> Requiring something to be blocked on xen-devel before we discuss it on
>> the call is monumentally short sighted, and off-putting for contributors.
>>
>> In this case, it is very definitely not the first time this problem has
>> been raised, as it is an XSA shaped elephant in the room. Its no secret
>> that id wraps cause problems, and while our security policy doesn't
>> comment on the matter, it also doesn't say "warning - stuff *will* break
>> in weird, wonderful, and security-relevant ways when domid's wrap".
>>
>> The order of the agenda is important, and I don't think this should be
>> at the top, but even if we only end up with 2 minutes to discuss it,
>> then so be it. (2 minutes of talking can still be far more valuable
>> than a weeks worth of emailing.)
>>
>> What is not acceptable is suggesting that it should be veto'd simply
>> because it is perceived to be a very fresh idea/query.
>
> I still think it would help if a short high level design would be posted
> on xen-devel first.
>
> I think that is a valid point and I agree. In the past when we had similar
> discussions often the outcome was not that clear and due to the nature of
> the calls the discussions were also not well reflected in the notes.
>
> So, there is an argument, that discussions typically are more productive when
> there is the possibility for some preparation or an e-mail thread to refer to.
We can defer the xenstoreless name service topic to the October monthly call.
For today's call, can we discuss the previously posted high-level design for unification of the domB RFC with dom0less, as "domB mode" for disaggregation of Xen's dom0?
- domB mode for dom0less (July 2019): https://lists.gt.net/xen/devel/557782
- domB RFC (June 2018): https://lists.gt.net/xen/devel/519367
Rich
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 7010 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 14:48 ` Rich Persaud
@ 2019-09-05 16:12 ` Lars Kurth
2019-09-05 16:16 ` Rich Persaud
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Lars Kurth @ 2019-09-05 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rich Persaud
Cc: Rian Quinn, Daniel P. Smith, Doug Goldstein, Julien Grall,
Jan Beulich, anastassios.nanos, Matt Spencer, edgar.iglesias,
John Ji, robin.randhawa, daniel.kiper, BrianWoods,
mirela.simonovic, xen-devel, Artem Mygaiev, Tamas KLengyel,
Christopher Clark, Paul Durrant, Ian Jackson, vfachin, intel-xen,
Jarvis Roach, Juergen Gross, Sergey Dyasli, Andrew Cooper,
Jeff Kubascik, Janakarajan Natarajan, Stefano Stabellini,
Stewart Hildebrand, Volodymyr Babchuk, Roger Pau Monne
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 455 bytes --]
> We can defer the xenstoreless name service topic to the October monthly call.
>
> For today's call, can we discuss the previously posted high-level design for unification of the domB RFC with dom0less, as "domB mode" for
> disaggregation of Xen's dom0?
>
> - domB mode for dom0less (July 2019): https://lists.gt.net/xen/devel/557782
> - domB RFC (June 2018): https://lists.gt.net/xen/devel/519367
I had seen this too late. Apologies
Lars
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2923 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 16:12 ` Lars Kurth
@ 2019-09-05 16:16 ` Rich Persaud
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Rich Persaud @ 2019-09-05 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Kurth
Cc: Rian Quinn, Daniel P. Smith, Doug Goldstein, Julien Grall,
Jan Beulich, anastassios.nanos, Matt Spencer, edgar.iglesias,
John Ji, robin.randhawa, daniel.kiper, BrianWoods,
mirela.simonovic, xen-devel, Artem Mygaiev, Tamas KLengyel,
Christopher Clark, Paul Durrant, Ian Jackson, vfachin, intel-xen,
Jarvis Roach, Juergen Gross, Sergey Dyasli, Andrew Cooper,
Jeff Kubascik, Janakarajan Natarajan, Stefano Stabellini,
Stewart Hildebrand, Volodymyr Babchuk, Roger Pau Monne
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 675 bytes --]
On Sep 5, 2019, at 12:12, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> > We can defer the xenstoreless name service topic to the October monthly call.
> >
> > For today's call, can we discuss the previously posted high-level design for unification of the domB RFC with dom0less, as "domB mode" for
> > disaggregation of Xen's dom0?
> >
> > - domB mode for dom0less (July 2019): https://lists.gt.net/xen/devel/557782
> > - domB RFC (June 2018): https://lists.gt.net/xen/devel/519367
>
> I had seen this too late. Apologies
> Lars
Since we did cover the xenstoreless name service today, we can cover "domB mode for dom0less" in the October call.
Rich
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2952 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 7:41 ` Rich Persaud
2019-09-05 7:49 ` Lars Kurth
@ 2019-09-05 7:50 ` Jan Beulich
2019-09-05 8:00 ` Lars Kurth
2019-09-05 7:54 ` Juergen Gross
2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2019-09-05 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rich Persaud
Cc: Rian Quinn, Daniel P. Smith, Doug Goldstein, Julien Grall,
anastassios.nanos, Matt Spencer, edgar.iglesias, John Ji,
robin.randhawa, daniel.kiper, mirela.simonovic, xen-devel,
Lars Kurth, Juergen Gross, Tamas K Lengyel, Christopher Clark,
Paul Durrant, Ian Jackson, vfachin, intel-xen, Jarvis Roach,
Artem Mygaiev, Sergey Dyasli, Jeff Kubascik,
Janakarajan Natarajan, Stefano Stabellini, Stewart Hildebrand,
Volodymyr Babchuk, Roger Pau Monne
On 05.09.2019 09:41, Rich Persaud wrote:
> If Xen community call topics are limited to escalations of xen-devel threads, then a new thread can be created for this topic. Xen community calls have also provided real-time, interactive feedback on candidate proposals, along with guidance on areas which need documentation before a formal proposal is made to xen-devel. Such agenda items are typically covered after all series and priority topics have been addressed.
I'll certainly listen to what others think, but I have to confess that
on such prior instances I was already on the edge of requesting that
time not be spent in such a way. Please recall that calls, other than
mails, take everybody's time, and exactly at the same time. Therefore
my personal opinion is that topics on calls should be limited to items
which cannot be resolved by other means, or which are certain to need
(almost) everybody's attention right away.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 7:50 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2019-09-05 8:00 ` Lars Kurth
2019-09-05 8:06 ` Juergen Gross
2019-09-05 8:19 ` Andrew Cooper
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Lars Kurth @ 2019-09-05 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich, Rich Persaud
Cc: Daniel P. Smith, Doug Goldstein, Julien Grall, anastassios.nanos,
Matt Spencer, edgar.iglesias, John Ji, robin.randhawa,
daniel.kiper, mirela.simonovic, xen-devel, Rian Quinn,
Juergen Gross, Tamas K Lengyel, Christopher Clark, Paul Durrant,
Ian Jackson, vfachin, intel-xen, Jarvis Roach, Artem Mygaiev,
Sergey Dyasli, Jeff Kubascik, Janakarajan Natarajan,
Stefano Stabellini, Stewart Hildebrand, Volodymyr Babchuk,
Roger Pau Monne
On 05/09/2019, 08:50, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
On 05.09.2019 09:41, Rich Persaud wrote:
> If Xen community call topics are limited to escalations of xen-devel threads, then a new thread can be created for this topic. Xen community calls have also provided real-time, interactive feedback on candidate proposals, along with guidance on areas which need documentation before a formal proposal is made to xen-devel. Such agenda items are typically covered after all series and priority topics have been addressed.
I'll certainly listen to what others think, but I have to confess that
on such prior instances I was already on the edge of requesting that
time not be spent in such a way. Please recall that calls, other than
mails, take everybody's time, and exactly at the same time. Therefore
my personal opinion is that topics on calls should be limited to items
which cannot be resolved by other means, or which are certain to need
(almost) everybody's attention right away.
I disagree with you on this one.
So yes, it is true that a call costs everyone time. But it's a fixed cost once per month
* Something experimental could be posted on the list and it may take everyone more time to read and respond than a 5 minute early discussion on the call
* Also, of course everyone has the option to drop out or not attend a call based on the agenda
* If we had more urgent stuff to discuss all the time and we would have to displace urgent discussions to cover discussions which can wait, I may agree with you, but this is not currently the case
I will look at the agenda though and re-structure it in such a way that this is clear
IMPORTANT: I had a few additions to the agenda, but do not know WHO added these. I believe one was Juergen. Who added the items related to MA Youngs patches? And if you add series to discuss can you please add URLs or message IDs
Regards
Lars
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 8:00 ` Lars Kurth
@ 2019-09-05 8:06 ` Juergen Gross
2019-09-05 8:19 ` Andrew Cooper
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Juergen Gross @ 2019-09-05 8:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Kurth, Rich Persaud, Jan Beulich
Cc: Daniel P. Smith, Doug Goldstein, Julien Grall, anastassios.nanos,
MattSpencer, edgar.iglesias, John Ji, robin.randhawa,
daniel.kiper, mirela.simonovic, xen-devel, Rian Quinn,
Tamas KLengyel, Christopher Clark, Paul Durrant, Ian Jackson,
vfachin, intel-xen, Jarvis Roach, Artem Mygaiev, Sergey Dyasli,
Jeff Kubascik, JanakarajanNatarajan, Stefano Stabellini,
Stewart Hildebrand, Volodymyr Babchuk, Roger PauMonne
On 05.09.19 10:00, Lars Kurth wrote:
>
>
> On 05/09/2019, 08:50, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 05.09.2019 09:41, Rich Persaud wrote:
> > If Xen community call topics are limited to escalations of xen-devel threads, then a new thread can be created for this topic. Xen community calls have also provided real-time, interactive feedback on candidate proposals, along with guidance on areas which need documentation before a formal proposal is made to xen-devel. Such agenda items are typically covered after all series and priority topics have been addressed.
>
> I'll certainly listen to what others think, but I have to confess that
> on such prior instances I was already on the edge of requesting that
> time not be spent in such a way. Please recall that calls, other than
> mails, take everybody's time, and exactly at the same time. Therefore
> my personal opinion is that topics on calls should be limited to items
> which cannot be resolved by other means, or which are certain to need
> (almost) everybody's attention right away.
>
> I disagree with you on this one.
>
> So yes, it is true that a call costs everyone time. But it's a fixed cost once per month
> * Something experimental could be posted on the list and it may take everyone more time to read and respond than a 5 minute early discussion on the call
> * Also, of course everyone has the option to drop out or not attend a call based on the agenda
> * If we had more urgent stuff to discuss all the time and we would have to displace urgent discussions to cover discussions which can wait, I may agree with you, but this is not currently the case
>
> I will look at the agenda though and re-structure it in such a way that this is clear
>
> IMPORTANT: I had a few additions to the agenda, but do not know WHO added these. I believe one was Juergen. Who added the items related to MA Youngs patches? And if you add series to discuss can you please add URLs or message IDs
Done.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 8:00 ` Lars Kurth
2019-09-05 8:06 ` Juergen Gross
@ 2019-09-05 8:19 ` Andrew Cooper
2019-09-05 8:29 ` Steven Haigh
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cooper @ 2019-09-05 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Kurth; +Cc: xen-devel
On 05/09/2019 09:00, Lars Kurth wrote:
> IMPORTANT: I had a few additions to the agenda, but do not know WHO added these. I believe one was Juergen. Who added the items related to MA Youngs patches?
Steven Haigh I believe.
Booting fedora guests is currently in a very broken state.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 8:19 ` Andrew Cooper
@ 2019-09-05 8:29 ` Steven Haigh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Steven Haigh @ 2019-09-05 8:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper; +Cc: Lars Kurth, xen-devel
On 2019-09-05 18:19, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 05/09/2019 09:00, Lars Kurth wrote:
>> IMPORTANT: I had a few additions to the agenda, but do not know WHO
>> added these. I believe one was Juergen. Who added the items related to
>> MA Youngs patches?
>
> Steven Haigh I believe.
>
> Booting fedora guests is currently in a very broken state.
Yep - I added points 1 & 2 to the AOB section.
I've also added point 3 to inform that I wouldn't be able to drive those
myself due to timezones.
I have added some references to xen-devel list posts that may be able to
assist. I'm happy to answer any questions via freenode if someone wants
to clobber me a few hours before the meeting - pending availability.
--
Steven Haigh
? netwiz@crc.id.au ? http://www.crc.id.au
? +61 (3) 9001 6090 ? 0412 935 897
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Call for agenda items for September 5th Community Call @ 15:00 UTC
2019-09-05 7:41 ` Rich Persaud
2019-09-05 7:49 ` Lars Kurth
2019-09-05 7:50 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2019-09-05 7:54 ` Juergen Gross
2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Juergen Gross @ 2019-09-05 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rich Persaud, Jan Beulich
Cc: Lars Kurth, Daniel P. Smith, Doug Goldstein, Julien Grall,
anastassios.nanos, mirela.simonovic, edgar.iglesias,
Janakarajan Natarajan, robin.randhawa, daniel.kiper,
Matt Spencer, xen-devel, Rian Quinn, Tamas K Lengyel,
Christopher Clark, Paul Durrant, Ian Jackson, vfachin, intel-xen,
Jarvis Roach, Artem Mygaiev, Sergey Dyasli, Volodymyr Babchuk,
Jeff Kubascik, John Ji, Stefano Stabellini, Stewart Hildebrand,
Brian Woods, Roger Pau Monne
On 05.09.19 09:41, Rich Persaud wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 2019, at 03:19, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05.09.2019 04:32, Rich Persaud wrote:
>>> Agenda item: Domain name service for nested virt and disaggregation
>>>
>>> (text based on draft by Daniel Smith, who will speak to this agenda item)
>>>
>>> If a future, minimal "L0 Xen" hypervisor can be optimized for nested virtualization in greenfield deployments (i.e. no requirement to maintain existing hypervisor-guest interfaces), then PV driver mechanisms other than grants, events and xenstore could be considered. This was discussed in a Xen Summit 2019 design session:
>>> https://lists.gt.net/xen/devel/560973
>>>
>>> For some OpenXT use cases, we are in the process of further disaggregating the platform. We need a name service to enable the disaggregated service domains to discover the other service domains with which they need to communicate. Xenstore is not sufficient, as we would like to use Flask to control the data flow, as well as applying mandatory access control to service calls.
>>>
>>> We are reaching out to the Xen Community to elicit input on approaches, such that we might be able to submit an upstream RFC based on our early work:
>>>
>>> - For a communication channel we are looking to leverage Argo, which is currently in experimental status. Its predecessor (v4v) is already being used in a similar fashion by Bromium uXen (https://github.com/openxt/uxen), which functions well across nested hypervisors. uXen v4v includes a mechanism to control information flow.
>>>
>>> - An open question is how to address the domains. Xen domain ids are reused and have no guarantee for uniqueness. UUIDs are available and can provide better guarantees for uniqueness. Another approach is to use the name string which allows the ability for punctuation characters, eg. : or /, to create namespaced names for the domains.
>>
>> Forgive me asking, but why is this put up as an agenda item here?
>> IMO this is the kind of thing where you would send a proposal and
>> request feedback by email first, and put it up as an agenda item
>> here only if it got stalled there. (Apologies if I've overlooked
>> such a stalled thread.)
>
> If Xen community call topics are limited to escalations of xen-devel threads, then a new thread can be created for this topic. Xen community calls have also provided real-time, interactive feedback on candidate proposals, along with guidance on areas which need documentation before a formal proposal is made to xen-devel. Such agenda items are typically covered after all series and priority topics have been addressed.
I kind of agree with Jan, but I can see your point.
My approach to address something like that would be to send a patch
adding the high level feature document to e.g. docs/features. This
can be accompanied by a rough RFC implementation, but that wouldn't
be required. By sending a first patch you show some commitment to the
topic, but you don't have to invest too much time in case the idea is
rejected. And with a patch you automatically request some feedback.
The feature document would only be committed with the code, of course.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread