Review Board 2.0.15


IntDev: latency fix

Review Request #384 - Created Jan. 6, 2011 and discarded

Information
Brad Beckmann
gem5
Reviewers
Default
ali, gblack, nate, stever 
IntDev: latency fix

Since the device should be responsible for latency of packets, remove the
latency field of the IntPort completely.

   

  


 


 

  

  









  
 


  

 


















 

  


 


  



   

   
Gabe Black

   
Posted  (Jan. 6, 2011, 8:34 p.m.)


  


  


  

   
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.



  

   

   
    
    

   
  1. 
    
    
     
    
      
     
    
     
    **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.
    
    
    
   
    2. 

   


  





  

 


  

 



















 

  


 


  



   

   
Nathan Binkert

   
Posted  (Jan. 7, 2011, 4:01 a.m.)


  


  


  

   



  

   

   
    
    
   


  




   







    

     
     

      

       
        

         
          src/dev/x86/intdev.hh
          

           (Diff revision 1)

          
         
        

       
       
        
 


        
 


       
      

     

    

    


     
Can you fix the style since you're editing?  The colon should be on the line below the one it's on.




  

   

   
    
    

   
  1. 
    
    
     
    
      
     
    
     
    That's not actually in the style guide unless I missed it just now, and I think having it where it is is a lot nicer. It gives you a visual clue what's on the next line just like putting operators at the end of lines instead of the beginning.
    
    
    
   
    2. 

   


  


    


   



  

 


  

 

















 



 

  


 


  



   

   
Nathan Binkert

   
Posted  (Jan. 7, 2011, 4:16 a.m.)


  


  


  

   



  

   

   
    
    
   


  




   







    

     
     

      

       
        

         
          src/dev/x86/intdev.hh
          

           (Diff revision 1)

          
         
        

       
       
        
 


        
 


       
      

     

    

    


     
Just because something is not in the style guide doesn't mean it's not part of the style.  I'd guess that 95% of m5 follows the convention.

Style is hugely about consistency of code.




  

   

   
    
    

   
  1. 
    
    
     
    
      
     
    
     
    None of my code does, and that's a lot more than 5%. Grepping around suggests that neither does Korey's. I can go through and change it all to be my way if all that matters is consistency.
    
    
    
   
    2.