From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47931) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFmEg-0004RA-Aw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:05:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFmEY-0001O2-FA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:05:26 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57610) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFmEY-0001Nn-72 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:05:18 -0500 From: Juan Quintela Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:05:13 +0100 Message-ID: <87eh30cvh2.fsf@elfo.mitica> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for 2014-02-18 Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: KVM devel mailing list , qemu-devel qemu-devel 2014-02-18 ---------- * [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V17 00/11] Add support for binding guest numa nodes Any news about this? (Vinod) * Should we change anything to get more people to sign for the call? There hasn't been a call in quite a long time. Ideas? (me) * x2apic? - Pending patch for cpu feature flag. - Should this be the default. - It is not for 32bits, but should it be for 64bit? - libvirt always use x2apic, unconditionally? - What happens if one side of migration uses -m