From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] kvm: define KVM_CAP_DEVICE_DEASSIGNMENT
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:05:21 +0200
Message-ID: <49941081.8080002@redhat.com>
References: <715D42877B251141A38726ABF5CABF2C01959AF3FF@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1234378735.14052.223.camel@blaa>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Han, Weidong" <weidong.han@intel.com>,
	"'kvm@vger.kernel.org'" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:53471 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753644AbZBLMFY (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:05:24 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1234378735.14052.223.camel@blaa>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Looks good to me, but I wonder why we never used 0x6b-0x6f?
>   

Someone went from 0x69 to 0x70.  I later used 0x6a.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function