> On May 8, 2012, 9:06 a.m., Ali Saidi wrote: > > src/mem/packet.hh, line 94 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1169/diff/1/?file=26170#file26170line94> > > > > hrm.. I think we probably want to do full block writes with > > writeinvrequest. > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > I am perfectly fine with not removing it if it is indeed used, the > question is who wants to change the DMA to use it again, and when? > > (I don't know the cache models well enough to feel comfortable in making > this type of change at the moment.) > > Any volunteers?
Is the conclusion that this can be removed (for clarity) and if anyone at any point wants to enhance the functionality they can add it again? - Andreas ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1169/#review2663 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 2, 2012, 7:15 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1169/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 2, 2012, 7:15 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Packet: Cleaning up packet command and attribute > > This patch removes unused commands and attributes from the packet to > avoid any confusion. It is part of an effort to clear up how and where > different commands and attributes are used. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/packet.hh 7f36d4436074 > src/mem/packet.cc 7f36d4436074 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1169/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > util/regress all passing (disregarding t1000 and eio) > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
