----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1120/#review2426 -----------------------------------------------------------
Ha...I just spent yesterday afternoon rebasing our patches based on your previous changeset. Since I already went through that effort, there is less of a need to rollback changeset 8920. As long as we agree that we'll only push common se/fs option settings in Options.py, then I don't think there is a need to rollback the previous changeset. - Brad Beckmann On April 3, 2012, 9:46 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1120/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 3, 2012, 9:46 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default and Brad Beckmann. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 8927:4886c6680cde > --------------------------- > Config: Partially roll back changeset 8920 > This patch partially rolls back changeset 8920, based on the feedback > received from Brad. It also fixes some of the scripts that had got > left out. > > > Diffs > ----- > > configs/common/Options.py 570b44fe6e04 > configs/example/fs.py 570b44fe6e04 > configs/example/ruby_direct_test.py 570b44fe6e04 > configs/example/ruby_fs.py 570b44fe6e04 > configs/example/ruby_mem_test.py 570b44fe6e04 > configs/example/ruby_network_test.py 570b44fe6e04 > configs/example/ruby_random_test.py 570b44fe6e04 > configs/example/se.py 570b44fe6e04 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1120/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Nilay Vaish > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
