From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MLLou-0006f0-JT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:43:12 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MLLor-0006Zp-7L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:43:12 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49472 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MLLoq-0006Yk-Mm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:43:08 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:40590) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MLLop-0005cs-At for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:43:07 -0400 Message-ID: <4A490B40.30605@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:43:12 +0300 From: Avi Kivity 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> <4A490A62.5030101@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: <4A490A62.5030101@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Jordan Justen , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 06/29/2009 09:39 PM, 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. That's true even if it's write only, as long as it is observable somehow (in our case, from the monitor). > Is it per-cpu? No, it's a normal pci/isa card. > I'd lean toward write-only unless there was a compelling reason to > make it read/write. I can't say there's a compelling reason for that. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.