Yep, and that was appreciated. But that was also very high level, and we need to drill down more into how it's actually going to work.
Gabe On 04/21/12 21:22, Nilay Vaish wrote: > I did sent out an email about the approach a week back, that is last > Saturday. > > -- > Nilay > > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2012, Gabriel Michael Black wrote: > >> I'd like to make a meta-comment here. It's good to communicate what >> you're doing so you don't get a long ways in and find out you went >> the wrong way, but at the same time it's important to know that what >> you've got is actually going to work before you go to get it checked >> in. With what I'm expecting will be a significant change like this, I >> think it's best to have some good discussion about how your design >> will work, then to implement it and get it working, and then to get >> it checked in in reviewable pieces. If you get all the way to >> something that works, you'll be able to see what changes you made >> that were ultimately unnecessary, what things you overlooked that >> forced something to be done a different way, etc. What you've got >> here I don't think will work and does things it doesn't need to do. >> It's in roughly the right direction though, so if you took it the >> rest of the way I think those problems would get fixed. >> >> Gabe > _______________________________________________ > 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
