Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3591: ruby: Allow multiple outstanding DMA requests

2016-09-01 Thread Andreas Hansson
> On Sept. 1, 2016, 3:33 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > What testing did you perform to make sure all of the protocols were > > modified correctly? > > > > Most of these changes seem reasonable to me, but I know from experience > > that even when the SLICC changes seem like they are right,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3591: ruby: Allow multiple outstanding DMA requests

2016-09-01 Thread Jason Lowe-Power
> On Sept. 1, 2016, 3:33 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > What testing did you perform to make sure all of the protocols were > > modified correctly? > > > > Most of these changes seem reasonable to me, but I know from experience > > that even when the SLICC changes seem like they are right,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3591: ruby: Allow multiple outstanding DMA requests

2016-09-01 Thread Michael LeBeane
> On Sept. 1, 2016, 3:33 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > What testing did you perform to make sure all of the protocols were > > modified correctly? > > > > Most of these changes seem reasonable to me, but I know from experience > > that even when the SLICC changes seem like they are right,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3600: mem: Modify drain to ensure banks and power are idled

2016-09-01 Thread Joe Gross
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3600/#review8702 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Joe Gross On Aug. 11, 2016, 4:08 a.m., Curtis

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3599: mem: Sort memory commands and update DRAMPower

2016-09-01 Thread Joe Gross
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3599/#review8701 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Joe Gross On Aug. 11, 2016, 4:07 a.m., Curtis

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3591: ruby: Allow multiple outstanding DMA requests

2016-09-01 Thread Jason Lowe-Power
> On Sept. 1, 2016, 3:33 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > What testing did you perform to make sure all of the protocols were > > modified correctly? > > > > Most of these changes seem reasonable to me, but I know from experience > > that even when the SLICC changes seem like they are right,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3591: ruby: Allow multiple outstanding DMA requests

2016-09-01 Thread Michael LeBeane
> On Sept. 1, 2016, 3:33 p.m., Jason Lowe-Power wrote: > > What testing did you perform to make sure all of the protocols were > > modified correctly? > > > > Most of these changes seem reasonable to me, but I know from experience > > that even when the SLICC changes seem like they are right,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3591: ruby: Allow multiple outstanding DMA requests

2016-09-01 Thread Jason Lowe-Power
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3591/#review8698 --- What testing did you perform to make sure all of the protocols were

[gem5-dev] Cron <m5test@zizzer> /z/m5/regression/do-regression quick

2016-09-01 Thread Cron Daemon
* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/o3-timing: passed. * build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple-timing-ruby: passed. * build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/minor-timing: passed. *

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3493: dev: Redefine 'length' in EthPacketData

2016-09-01 Thread Andreas Hansson
> On Aug. 31, 2016, 5:04 p.m., Michael LeBeane wrote: > > Any more comments on this? We would like to get a few more ship it's since > > this fairly large and will break checkpoints. If it breaks checkpoints there should be an update function added, or am I missing something? - Andreas