> On July 21, 2015, 8:50 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
> > src/sim/process.cc, line 316
> > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2966/diff/1/?file=48129#file48129line316>
> >
> >     How does this change help?
> 
> Brandon Potter wrote:
>     Rather than warn, I think it's better to generate an error (or ignore it 
> entirely).  It's either a problem or it's not and I think having an invalid 
> value for the file descriptor is a problem.  It might be better to be 
> strictly > rather than >= though, right?

Is fd ever < -1?  If not, then this assert if of no use.  I think we should 
have assert(fd > -1).


> On July 21, 2015, 8:50 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
> > src/sim/process.hh, line 164
> > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2966/diff/1/?file=48128#file48128line164>
> >
> >     I think this will break existing SE mode checkpoints.
> 
> Brandon Potter wrote:
>     Is the problem that it's referenced through a pointer now?  If not, can 
> you elaborate on why you think it might be a problem.  (Sorry, don't have any 
> experience with using checkpoints in gem5 and only starting to need to 
> support the interface in code; we don't make heavy use of them internally.)

I think we write all the fds whether they are valid or not to the checkpoint 
file.
Since the number is changing from 256 to 1024, I think earlier checkpoints may 
not load.
I think you should test with hello world application: take a checkpoint after 
1000 instructions
and see if the checkpoint loads correctly and the application runs to 
completion.


- Nilay


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2966/#review6800
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 14, 2015, 5:30 a.m., Brandon Potter wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2966/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 14, 2015, 5:30 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Default.
> 
> 
> Repository: gem5
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Changeset 10917:eafe9bd908a7
> ---------------------------
> syscall_emul: file descriptor interface changes
> 
> This patch gets rid of unused Process::dup_fd method and does minor
> refactoring in the process class files.  The file descriptor max has been
> changed to be the number of file descriptors since this clarifies the loop
> boundary condition and cleans up the code a bit.  The fd_map field has been
> altered to be dynamically allocated as opposed to being an array; the
> intention here is to build on this is subsequent patches to allow processes
> to share their file descriptors with the clone system call.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/sim/process.hh 5c76426fd9ee08bca733582c8c2f001a99e7ff5a 
>   src/sim/process.cc 5c76426fd9ee08bca733582c8c2f001a99e7ff5a 
>   src/sim/syscall_emul.cc 5c76426fd9ee08bca733582c8c2f001a99e7ff5a 
> 
> Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2966/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brandon Potter
> 
>

_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to