> On May 25, 2012, 9:59 a.m., Ali Saidi wrote: > > src/mem/bus.cc, line 187 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1222/diff/1/?file=26880#file26880line187> > > > > Although this isn't used today, would a derivative bus want the packet > > to determine this? > >
I'm tempted to say no. We are rather going in the direction where isOccupied will be implemented per layer (and also different for request/response/snoop response). Hence, I do not see a future use of the PacketPtr in this context. - Andreas ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1222/#review2805 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 25, 2012, 9:47 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1222/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 25, 2012, 9:47 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 9027:7cd72272f04d > --------------------------- > Bus: Remove redundant packet parameter from isOccupied > > This patch merely remove the Packet* from the isOccupied member > function. Historically this was used to check if the packet was an > express snoop, but this is now done outside this function (where > relevant). > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/bus.hh bb25e7646c41 > src/mem/bus.cc bb25e7646c41 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1222/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
