----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3407/#review8240 -----------------------------------------------------------
Hard not to like a change that's a net reduction in LOC! src/mem/cache/write_queue_entry.hh (line 80) <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3407/#comment7060> Is this 'pkt' field still used? I'd think not, in which case it should of course be deleted. If it is still used, I'd be curious how, since I'm leery of both forwarding the packet down to the next level and keeping a copy of the pointer ourselves---makes the ownership situation ambiguous. - Steve Reinhardt On April 9, 2016, 9:20 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3407/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 9, 2016, 9:20 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11442:338a5d23f371 > --------------------------- > mem: Simplify cache packet handling for uncacheable writes > > Cosmetic change following up on the recent cache queue > modifications. This patch aligns the handling of uncacheable writes in > that no new packets are created, similar to how write evictions are > dealt with. By not allocating copies of the packet the code is > simplified, and we avoid unecessary memory management. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/cache/cache.cc 0edcf757b6a2 > src/mem/cache/write_queue_entry.hh 0edcf757b6a2 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3407/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
