From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755146Ab0CVQPZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:15:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25214 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755103Ab0CVQPX (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:15:23 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA79718.9060606@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:13:12 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Pekka Enberg , Anthony Liguori , "Zhang, Yanmin" , Peter Zijlstra , Sheng Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti , oerg Roedel , Jes Sorensen , Gleb Natapov , Zachary Amsden , ziteng.huang@intel.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Fr?d?ric Weisbecker , Gregory Haskins Subject: Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project 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> In-Reply-To: <20100322160849.GB18796@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/22/2010 06:08 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Avi Kivity wrote: > > >> On 03/22/2010 04:32 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >>> * Avi Kivity 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