On Jan. 24, 2013, 9:14 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote:
What's the point of the avoidQuiesceLiveLock flag? Is there anything
preventing us from doing a squashAfter whenever there is an interrupt
pending and interrupts are turned on again?
Ali Saidi wrote:
You will be throwing away
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1660/#review3988
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Andreas Sandberg
On Jan. 22, 2013, 1:49 p.m.,
On Jan. 24, 2013, 9:14 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote:
What's the point of the avoidQuiesceLiveLock flag? Is there anything
preventing us from doing a squashAfter whenever there is an interrupt
pending and interrupts are turned on again?
Ali Saidi wrote:
You will be throwing away
On Jan. 24, 2013, 9:14 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote:
What's the point of the avoidQuiesceLiveLock flag? Is there anything
preventing us from doing a squashAfter whenever there is an interrupt
pending and interrupts are turned on again?
Ali Saidi wrote:
You will be throwing away
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1660/#review3968
---
Ship it!
Solves the problem :-)
- Andreas Hansson
On Jan. 22, 2013,
On Jan. 24, 2013, 9:14 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote:
What's the point of the avoidQuiesceLiveLock flag? Is there anything
preventing us from doing a squashAfter whenever there is an interrupt
pending and interrupts are turned on again?
You will be throwing away perfectly good
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1660/#review3895
---
What's the point of the avoidQuiesceLiveLock flag? Is there anything
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1660/
---
Review request for Default.
Description
---
Changeset 9513:86c772cdcb3e
