> On 2011-01-07 04:34:28, Gabe Black wrote: > > See review of the earlier IntDev patch. Basically this is displacing the > > latency value from the base class that uses it into the subclass that gets > > it from the config. I don't think it's necessary as described previously, > > but also that decentralizes a value that's always used in the same place > > for the same purpose.
**Note that this patch removes the latency member from IntPort.** This patch doesn't indicate where the latency member should end up (I'll comment on that in the other review request). Regardless of where the latency is handled, the rest of the codebase indicates that a port should not be responsible for assessing latency (see mem/port.*, mem/tport.* and mem/mport.*), so this is why I removed latency from the IntPort definition. - Joel ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/384/#review641 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2011-01-06 15:57:01, Brad Beckmann wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/384/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-01-06 15:57:01) > > > Review request for Default, Ali Saidi, Gabe Black, Steve Reinhardt, and > Nathan Binkert. > > > Summary > ------- > > IntDev: latency fix > > Since the device should be responsible for latency of packets, remove the > latency field of the IntPort completely. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/dev/x86/intdev.hh 9f9e10967912 > > Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/384/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Brad > >
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
