----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2549/#review5629 -----------------------------------------------------------
This patch seems odd to me. The MemSlavePort is a queued port, and we never send things straight away, and thus avoid the flow control. Instead we queue things to be sent in an infinite queue in the port. Thus, the retry list should simply be removed. The forwarding of the packet to the MemSlavePort never fails. - Andreas Hansson On Dec. 4, 2014, 3:49 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2549/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 4, 2014, 3:49 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10592:f019204420e8 > --------------------------- > ruby: do not try to issue request if port blocked > Changeset bc3126a05a7f added an assert that port should not be blocked > while issuing a request. On receiving a request We actually do not check at > all > whether the port is available. This patch adds a check. In case blocked, we > return false from the recvTiming() function. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.hh fea29fc045ee > src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc fea29fc045ee > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2549/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Nilay Vaish > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
