Re: Future of icount discussion for next KVM call?

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

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.