On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Alexander Graf
<address@hidden> wrote:
On 29.06.2009, at 20:39, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Avi Kivity wrote:
I still think the read/write port route would
* better emulate systems,
* be more flexible (allowing software the option to read it),
* and, be easier to implement :)
But, I think the most important part is to make the data accessible somehow. So, the monitor access method would work fine as well.
I don't object to read/write access.
If there's read and write access, it needs to be part of the savevm state. Is it per-cpu? If it's write only, then it doesn't need to be persisted in savevm.
I'd lean toward write-only unless there was a compelling reason to make it read/write.
Well it was write-only before, so I don't see any harm in keeping it that way. Or am I mistaken there?
Alex