Anthony,

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 did implement and test the savevm/loadvm functionality.

-Jordan

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>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.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
>