Hi Nilay, Yes, that is a good point. We really just need the interface to the permission to be available from AbstractEntry. The variable itself doesn't really need to be there. However, to make that change, you'll need to modify how CacheMemory supports atomics.
Could you elaborate on your directory controller question. I suspect that you are right and that only one type of directory controller can exist in a system, but why is that a problem? Brad > -----Original Message----- > From: m5-dev-boun...@m5sim.org [mailto:m5-dev-boun...@m5sim.org] > On Behalf Of Nilay Vaish > Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 2:12 AM > To: m5-dev@m5sim.org > Subject: [m5-dev] AccessPermission in AbstractEntry > > Brad, it seems like the m_Permission variable in AbstractEntry is not being > used at all. In order to get AccessPermission for a state, the > state_To_AccessPermission function needs to be called. Then, why have that > variable? And this would mean that CacheMemory has no idea about the > access permission, unless we expose the state to Cache Memory class. > > Also, as it now stands, it seems one cannot have two different types of > directory controllers in a system. Is this correct? If yes, then why this > restriction? > > -- > Nilay > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
