From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755093Ab0CVQJN (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:09:13 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:60604 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755027Ab0CVQJK (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:09:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:08:49 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Avi Kivity 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 Message-ID: <20100322160849.GB18796@elte.hu> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BA782D1.70607@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * 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). Thanks, Ingo