From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/12] [PATCH] kvm-s390: ioctl to switch to user controlled
 virtual machines
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 10:27:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4EE0830D.5040603@de.ibm.com>
References: <20111208091230.874920251@de.ibm.com> <20111208091728.908715499@de.ibm.com> <1323336309.3904.12.camel@lappy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Marcelo Tossati <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	borntrae@linux.vnet.ibm.com, heicars2@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	mschwid2@linux.vnet.ibm.com, huckc@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Joachim von Buttlar <joachim_von_buttlar@de.ibm.com>,
	Jens Freimann <jfrei@de.ibm.com>,
	Constantin Werner <constantin.werner@de.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
	Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang@intel.com>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.112]:36649 "EHLO
	e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752155Ab1LHJ2M (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 8 Dec 2011 04:28:12 -0500
Received: from /spool/local
	by e06smtp16.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org> from <cotte@de.ibm.com>;
	Thu, 8 Dec 2011 09:28:10 -0000
Received: from d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.217])
	by d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id pB89S8sN2592908
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 09:28:08 GMT
Received: from d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id pB89Rw2x019363
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 02:28:00 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1323336309.3904.12.camel@lappy>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 08.12.2011 10:25, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Why is it s390 specific? why isn't it KVM_VM_UCONTROL which is currently
> only implemented on s390?
Good point. Maybe the subject line for the patch should be fixed along 
with that ;-)