----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/818/#review1452 -----------------------------------------------------------
I just have a couple minor edits to make to the comments. However, I wonder what is the real benefit for combining the two fs files. I don't believe there is a lot of duplicate code between the two. Most of the added options in fs.py are not supported/related to Ruby. Also with your change, the main body of fs.py is now a large if/else statement with the if being the functionality from ruby_fs.py and the else being the fs.py functionality. Overall, I feel this is an unnecessary change that will negatively impact those of us who have other internal patches that modify these files. Why do it? configs/example/fs.py <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/818/#comment1874> Remove "ALPHA_FS" from comment. Ruby now works with both ALPHA and X86. configs/example/fs.py <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/818/#comment1875> Change comment to say the driver system is always atomic with the Classic memory system. - Brad On 2011-08-06 00:43:50, Nilay Vaish wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/818/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-08-06 00:43:50) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Summary > ------- > > Config: Add ruby_fs.py's functionality to fs.py > This patch combines fs.py and ruby_fs.py and removes ruby_fs.py. Using > ruby with fs.py would require mentioning --ruby on the command line. This > same as se.py. > > > Diffs > ----- > > configs/example/fs.py 7a9a7f2a3d46 > configs/example/ruby_fs.py 7a9a7f2a3d46 > > Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/818/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Nilay > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
