Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2305: dev: add an ethernet switch model

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2305/#review5734 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Ali Saidi On July 24, 2014, 7:44 p.m., Anthony Gu

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2291: mem: Properly set cache block status fields on writebacks

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2291/#review5733 --- I guess this is fixed, given the check for isSecure currently found in c

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2305: dev: add an ethernet switch model

I made the requested changes, and I've maintained the code and it works ok with the current repo. However, I didn't receive any other feedback, and didn't get the requisite two ship its. Cheers, Anthony Gutierrez http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~atgutier On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Andreas Hansson

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2305: dev: add an ethernet switch model

> On July 28, 2014, 12:38 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > Ship It! What is the state of this? - Andreas --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2305/#review5229

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2552: python: Adding event queue empty check after instantiation before startup

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2552/#review5731 --- src/python/m5/simulate.py

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2583: tests: Fix building the circletest unittest.

> On Dec. 17, 2014, 9:34 a.m., Ali Saidi wrote: > > Will this run into problems if we build the unit test with the fast compile > > options? Since the asserts are compiled out dose end up not writing? Perhaps split into two lines. Also, should it be assert or EXPECT_TRUE or similar? - Andre

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2585: test: Add a unittest for the BitUnion types.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2585/#review5729 --- Ship it! Looks fine. - Andreas Hansson On Dec. 26, 2014, 9:32 p.m., G

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2595: x86: Delay X86 table walk on receiving walker response

On Jan. 5, 2015, 10:48 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > Can you explain the sequence of events that result in bad behavior? If > > possible (which is not necessarily the case), it would be best to fix this > > without adding arbitrary delays. > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > The crossbar is pr

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2557: x86: kvm: Fix the KVM CPU in SE and FS on Intel CPUs.

> On Dec. 10, 2014, 10:30 p.m., mike upton wrote: > > There is some issue with AMD platforms. A test that used to run in 30 sec > > is not finishing. > > > > > > mike upton wrote: > hello world passes. SPEC apps hang. > > > Gabe Black wrote: > Can you identify where it's getting stuck

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2595: x86: Delay X86 table walk on receiving walker response

On Jan. 5, 2015, 10:48 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > Can you explain the sequence of events that result in bad behavior? If > > possible (which is not necessarily the case), it would be best to fix this > > without adding arbitrary delays. > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > The crossbar is pr

Re: [gem5-dev] bitunion and unittest CLs (and broken unittest)

Hey folks. Hopefully you're back from various holidays now. Ali reviewed my bitunion unit test, but the actual fix still needs to be reviewed, as does my fix for the circletest uinttest. cprintftest still doesn't compile. Gabe On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Gabe Black wrote: > I'm still waiti

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2595: x86: Delay X86 table walk on receiving walker response

> On Jan. 5, 2015, 10:48 p.m., Gabe Black wrote: > > src/arch/x86/pagetable_walker.cc, line 130 > > > > > > What clock is this a clock edge of? The clock of the pagetable walker which is a ClockedObject, and as such it is

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2595: x86: Delay X86 table walk on receiving walker response

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2595/#review5724 --- src/arch/x86/pagetable_walker.cc

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2598: mem: Remove unused RequestState in the bridge

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2598/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset 10646

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2597: mem: Always use SenderState for response routing in RubyPort

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2597/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset 10645

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2596: mem: Make the XBar responsible for tracking response routing

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2596/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset 10645

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2595: x86: Delay X86 table walk on receiving walker response

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2595/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset 10643

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2594: mem: Clean up Request initialisation

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2594/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset 10642

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2310: mem: Make the XBar responsible for tracking response routing

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2310/#review5723 --- My bad, wrong review :-) - Andreas Hansson On Jan. 5, 2015, 4:31 p.m.,

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2310: mem: Make the XBar responsible for tracking response routing

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2310/ --- (Updated Jan. 5, 2015, 4:31 p.m.) Review request for Default. Summary (updated) -

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2553: dev: Prevent intel 8254 timer events firing before startup

> On Dec. 5, 2014, 11:45 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > Look good to me. Do the regressions still pass? > > Cagdas Dirik wrote: > I ran the same tests as I mentioned in r/2545. Please let me know if I > need to test more. > > Cagdas Dirik wrote: > This very likely needs updates simil