Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3177: ruby: imported from reviewboard patch 2551

2015-11-21 Thread Nilay Vaish
> On Nov. 2, 2015, 8:56 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Exports.sm, line 189 > > > > > > I don't understand the reason for distinguising _wCC types. Should > > L1Cache/L2Cache types not provide

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3177: ruby: imported from reviewboard patch 2551

2015-11-20 Thread Sooraj Puthoor
> On Nov. 2, 2015, 8:56 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > Please provide a description for this patch. > > Sooraj Puthoor wrote: > This patch is imported from reviewboard and the original patch is > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2551/.So, would it help if we use the same > description used in

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3177: ruby: imported from reviewboard patch 2551

2015-11-12 Thread Nilay Vaish
> On Nov. 2, 2015, 8:56 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Exports.sm, line 189 > > > > > > I don't understand the reason for distinguising _wCC types. Should > > L1Cache/L2Cache types not provide

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3177: ruby: imported from reviewboard patch 2551

2015-11-12 Thread Joel Hestness
> On Nov. 2, 2015, 8:56 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Exports.sm, line 189 > > > > > > I don't understand the reason for distinguising _wCC types. Should > > L1Cache/L2Cache types not provide

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3177: ruby: imported from reviewboard patch 2551

2015-11-12 Thread Brad Beckmann
> On Nov. 2, 2015, 8:56 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Exports.sm, line 189 > > > > > > I don't understand the reason for distinguising _wCC types. Should > > L1Cache/L2Cache types not provide

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3177: ruby: imported from reviewboard patch 2551

2015-11-12 Thread Sooraj Puthoor
> On Nov. 2, 2015, 8:56 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > Please provide a description for this patch. This patch is imported from reviewboard and the original patch is http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2551/.So, would it help if we use the same description used in that patch for this patch also? > On

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3177: ruby: imported from reviewboard patch 2551

2015-11-12 Thread Joel Hestness
> On Nov. 2, 2015, 8:56 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > Please provide a description for this patch. > > Sooraj Puthoor wrote: > This patch is imported from reviewboard and the original patch is > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2551/.So, would it help if we use the same > description used in

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3177: ruby: imported from reviewboard patch 2551

2015-11-12 Thread Brad Beckmann
> On Nov. 2, 2015, 8:56 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Exports.sm, line 189 > > > > > > I don't understand the reason for distinguising _wCC types. Should > > L1Cache/L2Cache types not provide

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3177: ruby: imported from reviewboard patch 2551

2015-11-12 Thread Nilay Vaish
> On Nov. 2, 2015, 8:56 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Exports.sm, line 189 > > > > > > I don't understand the reason for distinguising _wCC types. Should > > L1Cache/L2Cache types not provide

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3177: ruby: imported from reviewboard patch 2551

2015-11-02 Thread Joel Hestness
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3177/#review7444 --- Please provide a description for this patch.

[gem5-dev] Review Request 3177: ruby: imported from reviewboard patch 2551

2015-10-30 Thread Tony Gutierrez
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3177/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset