From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N14TM-0000wR-P6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:41:24 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1N14TI-0000s8-Pg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:41:24 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43466 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N14TI-0000s0-Dx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:41:20 -0400
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.159]:28049)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1N14TI-00074O-37
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:41:20 -0400
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so3251029fga.10
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4AE0C36A.1090608@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:41:14 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 03/20] sb16: remove IO_READ_PROTO
References: <cover.1256221008.git.quintela@redhat.com>	<626b98860a5002e8e7330e870b3962352a42494f.1256221008.git.quintela@redhat.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0910230032240.2584@linmac.oyster.ru>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0910230032240.2584@linmac.oyster.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: malc <av1474@comtv.ru>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>

malc wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, Juan Quintela wrote:
>
> No.
>   

I was going to say, "Because..."

But seeing as the commit message was completely empty, "No." is a pretty 
reasonable response.

Juan, can you explain the justification for removing this a bit more?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori