From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MLLlb-0004Ow-9x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:39:47 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MLLlW-0004MI-S1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:39:46 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44601 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MLLlW-0004MF-Na
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:39:42 -0400
Received: from mail-ew0-f211.google.com ([209.85.219.211]:36659)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1MLLlW-00056A-Aj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:39:42 -0400
Received: by ewy7 with SMTP id 7so5047099ewy.34
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4A490A62.5030101@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:39:30 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Implement PC port80 debug register.
References: <1246262725-23825-1-git-send-email-jljusten@gmail.com>	<4A48C5F5.6030402@codemonkey.ws>
	<4A48CE67.9070705@redhat.com>	<2a50f7880906290826t4128b11dyc68a36fd01e8208c@mail.gmail.com>	<4A48DE4A.7090706@codemonkey.ws>
	<2a50f7880906290907m60bda19cy53a58c97fd014c73@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A48F5B5.4000002@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A48F5B5.4000002@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.gnu.org/pipermail/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: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Jordan Justen <jljusten@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

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