> On Aug. 6, 2012, 6:26 p.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote:
> > src/dev/dma_device.hh, line 86
> > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1316/diff/3/?file=28322#file28322line86>
> >
> >     I don't see where we use 'uint' anywhere else in the code, and I don't 
> > believe it's a standard typedef.  If signedness really matters, use 
> > 'unsigned' or 'unsigned int' (we seem to use the former predominantly, and 
> > the latter just occasionally).

I blame Ali, originally it was unsigned int and he suggested uint. I will 
revert that change if everyone agrees :)


- Andreas


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1316/#review3213
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 28, 2012, 10:24 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1316/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 28, 2012, 10:24 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Default.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Changeset 9146:a02007211735
> ---------------------------
> DMA: Refactor the DMA device and align timing and atomic
> 
> This patch does a bunch of house-keeping updates on the DMA, including
> indentation, and formatting, but most importantly breaks out the
> response handling such that it can be shared between the atomic and
> timing modes. It also removes a potential bug caused by the atomic
> handling of responses only deleting the allocated request (pkt->req)
> once the DMA action completes instead of doing so for every packet.
> 
> Before this patch, the handling of responses was near identical for
> atomic and timing, but the code was simply duplicated. With this
> patch, the handleResp method deals with the responses in both cases.
> 
> There are further updates to make after removing the NACKs, but that
> will be part of a separate follow-up patch. This patch does not change
> the behaviour of any regression.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/dev/dma_device.hh 64d4c9d8a384 
>   src/dev/dma_device.cc 64d4c9d8a384 
> 
> Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1316/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

Reply via email to