Hello, I've already hacked a quick workaround for my work but is no proper patch. I will write up a proper one sometime within next week and post it (+ the nanosleep syscall patch)
-Ioannis On 22 Jul 2010, at 19:17, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Korey Sewell <ksew...@umich.edu> wrote: > > Yea, I know that's the key to the problems we had before, is that > different people had different mental notions of what these states > mean, which led to inconsistencies across the CPU models in terms of > how they were/are handled. I agree that, ideally, the first step is > to hash out some definitions so we can agree on what they should mean > before we go changing the code again. Though if Ioannis wants to hack > in some workarounds just to get his situation working he may want to > do that rather than waiting on us to fix everything :-). But we would > value his input in making sure that the long-term solution meets his > needs as well as everyone else's. _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
