From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41507 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OdjlZ-0005i3-NV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:00:18 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1OdjlY-0007ML-BI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:00:17 -0400
Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:58908)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1OdjlY-0007MA-91
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:00:16 -0400
Received: by yxn35 with SMTP id 35so510731yxn.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 06:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C4ED85B.2090807@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:00:11 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20100726212849.GB2651@x200.localdomain>	<4C4E0C05.5030004@codemonkey.ws>
	<4C4E1A33.7050709@codemonkey.ws>
	<m3wrshqtnc.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <m3wrshqtnc.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: KVM call agenda for July 27
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org

On 07/27/2010 02:19 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Anthony Liguori<anthony@codemonkey.ws>  writes:
>
>    
>> - any additional input on probed_raw?
>>      
> Isn't it a fait accompli?  I stopped providing input when commit
> 79368c81 appeared.
>    

No.  79368c81 was to close the security hole (and I do consider it a 
security hole).  But as I mentioned on the list, I'm also not satisfied 
with it and that's why I proposed probed_raw.  I was hoping to get a 
little more input from those that objected to 79368c81 as to whether 
probed_raw was more agreeable.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori