On 21 March 2012 16:29, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > Am 19.03.2012 23:57, schrieb Juan Quintela: >> Use one subsection for each feature. This means that we don't need to >> bump the version field each time that a new feature gets introduced. >> >> Introduce cpsr_vmstate field, as I am not sure if I can "use" >> uncached_cpsr for saving state.
You could, I guess, but you'd need a 'post-save' hook to reset the bits not stored in uncached_cpsr normally, and it's a bit ugly. On the other hand having a field in CPUARMState just for save load is also pretty ugly. VMState should support a way to mark a migration state field as "not actually stored in a field in the struct, use these functions to save and load it", and we should use that. > As stated previously, I still think we should hold off converting the > ARM CPU to VMState until the cp15 rework by Peter takes on shape. I don't think this code actually clashes with what I've done so far, and I think switching to a lot of separate subsections is probably a step in the right direction even if the details might not be quite what they'll end up eventually. So I don't think we need to block it until the cp15 stuff lands. (Plus I know I've been taking forever on cp15 so I feel bad about blocking other peoples' patches on it.) -- PMM
