Re: Future of icount discussion for next KVM call?

["Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>]

On 16/2/23 13:20, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> 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?)

I'd rather skip "Single qemu-system binary" for next week agenda.
(In 2 weeks we could discuss CPU topology and shared buses.)

>> - 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.
> 
> The former may necessitate more frequent calls.

IIRC it was said we can have more than every 2 weeks per community
request, otherwise we should try to respect the current cadence to
maintain the current inertia.