----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3253/#review7740 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/mem/cache/mshr.cc (line 331) <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3253/#comment6670> The test here is stronger than the comment implies. Going by the comment, I expected the test to be pkt->needsExclusive() && !pkt->isInvalidate() which differs from the existing test in that pkt->isInvalidate() does not require pkt->needsExclusive(). Not sure what is intended, but I think either the comment or the test should be updated so the two are consistent. - Steve Reinhardt On Dec. 9, 2015, 3:54 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3253/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 9, 2015, 3:54 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11261:5f8c27a6d82c > --------------------------- > mem: Explicitly check MSHR snoops for cases not dealt with > > Add a sanity check to make it explicit that we currently do not allow > an I/O coherent agent to directly issue writes into the coherent part > of the memory system (it has to go via a cache, and get transformed > into a read ex, upgrade or invalidation). > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/cache/mshr.cc 8ed230a0b28c > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3253/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
