I think I'll push what I've got and then try to figure out how to refactor it. I agree that it feels really repetitive, but it's tricky since there are a lot of little things that change each time that would have to be parameterized and a lot of values that flow through the whole process. I don't know that I like the idea of just chopping out the "split" case since I'd have to recompute some things or have a lot of parameters. If anyone else wants to take a shot at it I certainly wouldn't complain.
Gabe > I'd hope that the frequency of page faults would be low enough that > the overhead of needlessly allocating the second request object in > that case would be negligible. It turns out that that particular > piece of code doesn't get much shorter, but it is a little less > repetitive since you only have the delete/return code once. > > Basically what I was driving at here is the same thing Nate mentioned > later: it's just growing into a very long piece of code and it would > be nice to condense it a bit. It seems like there's some low-level > conceptual redundancy in it (doing the same thing to each of two > requests in the split case, and then similar code for the non-split > case) so there might be a way to factor out some of the common bits. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
