----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3059/#review7256 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it! Seems fine to me. Just one question, is it necessary to keep the lookup result as a class variable? Can you not pass it around after the first lookup? Some how, I do not like doing this. - Nilay Vaish On Aug. 21, 2015, 3:49 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3059/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 21, 2015, 3:49 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11062:85ac67b53235 > --------------------------- > mem: Store snoop filter lookup result to avoid second lookup > > This patch introduces a private member storing the iterator from the > lookupRequest call, such that it can be re-used when the request > eventually finishes. The method previously called updateRequest is > renamed finishRequest to make it more clear that the two functions > must be called together. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/coherent_xbar.cc 842f56345a42 > src/mem/snoop_filter.hh 842f56345a42 > src/mem/snoop_filter.cc 842f56345a42 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3059/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
