Hi Nilay,
As I see it, it's now the receiving end's responsibility to implement
recvTimingSnoopReq, possibly a void function (e.g. as done
at src/cpu/o3/cpu.hh, src/arch/x86/pagetable_walker.hh,
src/cpu/simple/timing.hh).
So the snoop is always forwarded if forwardSnoops==true (in vain in such
cases). If recvTimingSnoopReq wasn't implemented, you'll end up with
port.hh's recvTimingSnoopReq, and will panic("%s was not expecting a timing
snoop request\n", name()).
I hope this correctly motivates the current implementation.
Regards,
Uri
2012/6/8 Nilay Vaish <[email protected]>
> Hi
>
> On line 1188, function handleSnoop(), file cache_impl.hh, there is a check
> on whether or not to forward snoops. Should there be a check there on
> whether or not the cpu side port is accepts snoop requests?
>
> --
> Nilay
> ______________________________**_________________
> gem5-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://m5sim.org/mailman/**listinfo/gem5-dev<http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev>
>
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
