> > Why not just have a drain object be part of the System class? It seems like > that should solve the problem and allow to concurrent drain events to occur > if we decided that functionality was required at some point. >
I don't think we always drain on a per-System basis though... e.g., when we checkpoint, don't we do a drain on the entire config? And in that case there are things like Ethernet links that may need to be drained but aren't necessarily below any System object in the hierarchy. One option would be to have a set of SimObject classes that can serve as the root of a draining subtree, and include both System and Root in that set. Or we could have every SimObject have that potential at the cost of an extra int per SimObject. Steve
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
