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

2016-10-10 Thread Andreas Sandberg
> On Oct. 3, 2016, 5:27 p.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote: > > src/dev/net/etherpkt.cc, line 44 > > > > > > I really don't like the way this is breaking checkpoints. > > > > The right thing to do here would be to

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

2016-10-10 Thread Michael LeBeane
> On Oct. 3, 2016, 4:27 p.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote: > > src/dev/net/etherpkt.cc, line 44 > > > > > > I really don't like the way this is breaking checkpoints. > > > > The right thing to do here would be to

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

2016-10-03 Thread Andreas Sandberg
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3493/#review8763 --- src/dev/net/etherpkt.cc (line 44)

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

2016-10-03 Thread Michael LeBeane
> 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. > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > If it breaks checkpoints there should be an update function added, or am > I

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

2016-09-21 Thread Michael LeBeane
> 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. > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > If it breaks checkpoints there should be an update function added, or am > I

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

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

2016-08-31 Thread Michael LeBeane
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3493/#review8696 --- Any more comments on this? We would like to get a few more ship it's

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

2016-07-05 Thread Gabor Dozsa
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3493/#review8469 --- Ship it! It looks good! Thank you for the fixes! - Gabor Dozsa On

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

2016-06-29 Thread Michael LeBeane
> On June 22, 2016, 10:42 a.m., Gabor Dozsa wrote: > > src/dev/net/etherpkt.cc, line 55 > > > > > > If you serialize the useful data only then you could use dataLength > > here, too. In that case, adding an assertion to

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

2016-06-29 Thread Michael LeBeane
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3493/ --- (Updated June 29, 2016, 6:27 p.m.) Review request for Default. Changes ---

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

2016-06-22 Thread Gabor Dozsa
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3493/#review8429 --- Thank you for the patch! It looks good, I have a few minor comments

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

2016-05-31 Thread Michael LeBeane
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3493/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset