> On April 15, 2015, 10:49 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > Thanks for the fix. I'm ok with this going in, but I have a simplification > > that I think we should consider instead. Let me post if and see what you > > think. > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2746/ > > Let me know what you think. > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > Shall we discard this patch in favour of the other one?
Yes. - Rizwana ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2734/#review6048 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 9, 2015, 8:48 p.m., Rizwana Begum wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2734/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 9, 2015, 8:48 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10782:5fdf351e41e1 > --------------------------- > mem: Bug fix in write merge logic > > This patch fixes the write merge logic. Previously, new write > requests were merged with the existing writes across burst > boundaries. This patch ensures that only writes falling within a > burst boundary are merged. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/dram_ctrl.cc 46070443051e > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2734/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > This patch changes stats. Number of writes merged are less due to this patch, > which impacts memory and systems stats. > > > Thanks, > > Rizwana Begum > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
