From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single
 project
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:13:12 +0200
Message-ID: <4BA79718.9060606@redhat.com>
References: <20100321205531.GC30194@elte.hu> <4BA692C3.7010408@redhat.com> <20100321215455.GB13219@elte.hu> <4BA7187E.3050405@redhat.com> <20100322111411.GC3483@elte.hu> <4BA7629B.7020604@redhat.com> <20100322124428.GA12475@elte.hu> <4BA76810.4040609@redhat.com> <20100322143212.GE14201@elte.hu> <4BA782D1.70607@redhat.com> <20100322160849.GB18796@elte.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	oerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com>, ziteng.huang@intel.com,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
	Fr?d?ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100322160849.GB18796@elte.hu>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 03/22/2010 06:08 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com>  wrote:
>
>    
>> On 03/22/2010 04:32 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>      
>>> * Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com>   wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> On 03/22/2010 02:44 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>          
>>>>> This is why i consider that line of argument rather dishonest ...
>>>>>            
>>>> I am not going to reply to any more email from you on this thread.
>>>>          
>>> Because i pointed out that i consider a line of argument intellectually
>>> dishonest?
>>>
>>> I did not say _you_ as a person are dishonest - doing that would be an ad
>>> honimen attack against your person. (In fact i dont think you are, to the
>>> contrary)
>>>
>>> An argument can certainly be labeled dishonest in a fair discussion and it
>>> is not a personal attack against you to express my opinion about that.
>>>
>>>        
>> Sigh, why am I drawn into this.
>>
>> A person who uses dishonest arguments is a dishonest person. [...]
>>      
> That's not how i understood that phrase - and i did not mean to suggest that
> you are dishonest and i do not think that you are dishonest (to the contrary).
>    

Word games.

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