> On Aug. 3, 2015, 3:09 p.m., Jason Power wrote: > > One more small thing, but other than that it looks good to me.
Are there any regressions that cover this code? Do we have an alpha(?) test that uses LLSC? It would be nice to see this code tested, just in case we have all missed something. - Jason ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2953/#review6884 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 10, 2015, 4:27 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2953/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 10, 2015, 4:27 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10928:2ff7814c0484 > --------------------------- > ruby: handle llsc accesses through CacheEntry, not CacheMemory > > The sequencer takes care of llsc accesses by calling upon functions > from the CacheMemory. This is unnecessary once the required CacheEntry object > is available. Thus some of the calls to findTagInSet() are avoided. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/ruby/slicc_interface/AbstractCacheEntry.hh 5c76426fd9ee > src/mem/ruby/system/Sequencer.cc 5c76426fd9ee > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2953/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Nilay Vaish > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
