Re: Future of icount discussion for next KVM call?

["Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>]

Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> writes:

> Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> (replying all because qemu-devel rejected my email again)
>>>
>>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 10:19, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Juan,
>>>>
>>>> Do we have an agenda for next weeks KVM call yet? If there is space I'd
>>>> like to take some time to discuss the future direction of icount.
>>
>> For next week we have:
>> - more single binary qemu (philippe?)
>> - TDX migration from intel.
>>   We asked them on the previous call to change their design to transfer
>>   stuff through migration channels and not create a new channel.  But I
>>   haven't heard from intel. (wei?)
>>   They agreed to send the slides and post the code before continue
>>   discussion.
>>
>> And now I like the title of you topic
>>
>> - Future Direction of icount
>>
>> O:-)
>>
>> So, I will recommend 20 minutes each if Wei shows up, or 30/30 for the
>> rest.
>>
>> What do the rest of the people think.
>
> I think we either need fewer topics per call (ideally one), or strictly
> enforced time limits per topic.  I don't fancy meetings where the topic
> that made me attend falls off the end.

I'm happy to push this out to the next KVM meeting if you want. The main
driver for posting this now was to ensure availability for interested
participants and maybe get some pre-discussion on the list.

> The former may necessitate more frequent calls.

Maybe - the number of agenda items tends to ebb and flow and we seem to
be making good use of the slot now to discuss a wide array of topics.

-- 
Alex Bennée
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro