> On 2011-03-18 13:54:12, Gabe Black wrote: > > It seems like we should be able to emulate the access system call fairly > > easily. It basically just checks if a file can be accessed in certain ways, > > I think. We could do that on the real file descriptor, rearrange the result > > if necessary, and pass it back. The other syscall changes here look ok. > > Lisa Hsu wrote: > Would you object to committing/pushing as is and emulating access() if it > ever becomes necessary in the future? It's not something I'm going to commit > to doing, and I wouldn't want everything else to get held up because of it.
How is access() being used right now? It would be dangerous to assume just because it didn't seem to cause a problem by ignoring it that it's actually safe to do so, and it must be used by something or that line wouldn't be necessary. I would rather we did this safely than expediently. This change, or at least that line, should be independent of any other change as far as I've seen and shouldn't hold anything else up. - Gabe ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/588/#review980 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2011-03-17 16:05:56, Lisa Hsu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/588/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-03-17 16:05:56) > > > Review request for Default, Ali Saidi, Gabe Black, Steve Reinhardt, and > Nathan Binkert. > > > Summary > ------- > > X86: SE syscalls: patch from Vince Weaver for review > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/arch/x86/linux/syscalls.cc 2e269d6fb3e6 > > Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/588/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > I've done minimal testing on these, i.e. I've pushed them to a clean tree and > run X86 SPEC2k6 binaries on them, some of which didn't work prior to the > patches but now do. Others remain broken. Vince, however, has done lots of > testing and basically needed these to run SPEC2K workloads to completion for > his thesis. In other words, I bet these patches are good, but not complete > for the purposes of running SPEC2k6. > > > Thanks, > > Lisa > > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
