It looks like you're right, so go for it. Gabe
On 07/06/11 05:57, Nilay Vaish wrote: > Gabe, the only side effect seems to be the invalidation of the ITB and > DTB entries. Other than that any change in a register value affects > only the > registers themselves. If copyRegs() is being called when the registers > are in a consistent state amongst themselves, I don't think any checks > need to be carried out or side effects need to be taken care of. And > as I understand, we can always proactively invalidate ITB and DTB > entries when copying registers. > > -- > Nilay > > On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Gabriel Michael Black wrote: > >> That's more complicated, and in the mean time there should probably >> be a panic there. If it's quick, then the panic would only be there >> for a short time, and if it's not then there isn't a gotcha dangling >> there waiting to catch somebody. >> >> If you want to implement that function (which would be nice, so go >> for it) you'll need to look at what effects and checks the various >> miscregs have in isa.cc. Then you'll need to determine what order >> they need to be updated in so that nothing ends up broken, no panics >> are triggered, all the right side effects end up in effect, etc. It >> shouldn't be -too- nasty because the side effects I think are >> relatively minor in most cases, but it still needs to be done carefully. >> >> Gabe >> >> Quoting Nilay Vaish <[email protected]>: >> >>> >>> >>>> On 2011-07-01 15:02:18, Nilay Vaish wrote: >>>>> Gabe, I took care of the things you had pointed out. Do you think >>>>> we should >>>>> commit this woithout taking care of the misc. registers? >>>> >>>> Gabe Black wrote: >>>> This change itself is for the better since it gets copyRegs >>>> itself to work. The question is whether to bump the panic from >>>> there up to copyMiscRegs, and since I really don't think it will >>>> work as is the answer is probably yes. >>> >>> Well, that would not solve the actual problem. Suppose I were to >>> implement >>> it, where should I start from? >>> >>> >>> - Nilay >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >>> http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/759/#review1377 >>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> On 2011-07-01 15:00:08, Nilay Vaish wrote: >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: >>>> http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/759/ >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> (Updated 2011-07-01 15:00:08) >>>> >>>> >>>> Review request for Default, Ali Saidi, Gabe Black, Steve Reinhardt, >>>> and Nathan Binkert. >>>> >>>> >>>> Summary >>>> ------- >>>> >>>> x86: Implements copyRegs() function >>>> The copyRegs() function for x86 is currently unimplemented. This patch >>>> provides an implementation. >>>> >>>> Apart from this patch, I have another question. In the function >>>> copyMiscRegs(), a comment appears that 'it has been implemented >>>> naively.' >>>> Why the comment? What would an accurate implementation look like? >>>> >>>> >>>> Diffs >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> src/arch/x86/utility.cc 559ef3da5dac >>>> >>>> Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/759/diff >>>> >>>> >>>> Testing >>>> ------- >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Nilay >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
