> On 2011-03-18 13:54:12, Gabe Black wrote: > > It seems like we should be able to emulate the access system call fairly > > easily. It basically just checks if a file can be accessed in certain ways, > > I think. We could do that on the real file descriptor, rearrange the result > > if necessary, and pass it back. The other syscall changes here look ok. > > Lisa Hsu wrote: > Would you object to committing/pushing as is and emulating access() if it > ever becomes necessary in the future? It's not something I'm going to commit > to doing, and I wouldn't want everything else to get held up because of it. > > Gabe Black wrote: > How is access() being used right now? It would be dangerous to assume > just because it didn't seem to cause a problem by ignoring it that it's > actually safe to do so, and it must be used by something or that line > wouldn't be necessary. I would rather we did this safely than expediently. > This change, or at least that line, should be independent of any other change > as far as I've seen and shouldn't hold anything else up. > > Ali Saidi wrote: > well... all it seems like you would need to do is return 0 when it's > called. That means you can access the file and I doubt we would ever have a > case where you couldn't.
That sounds about right, and that should be really easy to implement. We should make sure we put a comment in there explaining why we're always returning 0. - Gabe ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/588/#review980 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2011-03-17 16:05:56, Lisa Hsu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/588/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-03-17 16:05:56) > > > Review request for Default, Ali Saidi, Gabe Black, Steve Reinhardt, and > Nathan Binkert. > > > Summary > ------- > > X86: SE syscalls: patch from Vince Weaver for review > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/arch/x86/linux/syscalls.cc 2e269d6fb3e6 > > Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/588/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > I've done minimal testing on these, i.e. I've pushed them to a clean tree and > run X86 SPEC2k6 binaries on them, some of which didn't work prior to the > patches but now do. Others remain broken. Vince, however, has done lots of > testing and basically needed these to run SPEC2K workloads to completion for > his thesis. In other words, I bet these patches are good, but not complete > for the purposes of running SPEC2k6. > > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
