> the beginning and then restores it back towards the end.
> Wondering if that could be a problem with the CI?
I would be surprised if there is even any POWER-specific CI at all.
The one POWER binary we had (in test-progs), was removed at c1ebdf66f. I've been waiting on 86222736e (which just got in) before submitting
https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/40635 ,
could you please code-review that? Then, we are ready to merge your e52dbcb.
> The current sequence breaks 32-bit support in
> the beginning and then restores it back towards the end.
Up to you really. My guess is that when you look at how much `develop` has diverged in the past months, you will find keeping the sequence less of a thing.
https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/40635 ,
could you please code-review that? Then, we are ready to merge your e52dbcb.
> The current sequence breaks 32-bit support in
> the beginning and then restores it back towards the end.
Up to you really. My guess is that when you look at how much `develop` has diverged in the past months, you will find keeping the sequence less of a thing.
-----"Sandipan Das" <[email protected]> wrote: -----
To: "Boris Shingarov" <[email protected]>
From: "Sandipan Das" <[email protected]>
Date: 02/04/2021 06:23AM
Cc: [email protected], "Pratik Rajesh Sampat" <[email protected]>, "Kajol Jain" <[email protected]>, "Gautham R. Shenoy" <[email protected]>, "gem5 Developer List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] Re: Upstreaming power-gem5
From: "Sandipan Das" <[email protected]>
Date: 02/04/2021 06:23AM
Cc: [email protected], "Pratik Rajesh Sampat" <[email protected]>, "Kajol Jain" <[email protected]>, "Gautham R. Shenoy" <[email protected]>, "gem5 Developer List" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] Re: Upstreaming power-gem5
Hello Boris,
On 04/02/21 12:43 am, Boris Shingarov wrote:
>> I think I had come across that problem too but I am sure
>> that one of my patches will fix that. Probably this one
>
> Yes -- that's what I meant by "commits related to 3dd04381".
> So, let's start with this small area.
>
Sure.
>> Yes, I can submit it via gerrit.
>> As a kernel developer, I am more used to mailing list based reviews
>> but feel free to let me know what works best for you.
>
> Gerrit is the procedure currently used by the gem5 community. Even though I personally find it non-ideal, it is kind of a given for the foreseeable future, and I think the optimal scenario (within the realistic choices) would be if you started upstreaming using that procedure. The other alternative, of which I was afraid before I initially wrote to you, would have been if you had abandoned the project or had no time/energy to do the rebasing / pushing / working with the review, in that case I was thinking about just taking your patches and putting them on Gerrit myself but I can see a whole number of reasons to avoid this.
>
>
Sure, I'll submit the changes via Gerrit.
Aside from rebasing on top of the develop branch, I think it will
be easier for us if I bring all the 32-bit cleanups and fixes to
the beginning of the series and then introduce 64-bit mode followed
by new instructions. The current sequence breaks 32-bit support in
the beginning and then restores it back towards the end. Wondering
if that could be a problem with the CI?
- Sandipan
On 04/02/21 12:43 am, Boris Shingarov wrote:
>> I think I had come across that problem too but I am sure
>> that one of my patches will fix that. Probably this one
>
> Yes -- that's what I meant by "commits related to 3dd04381".
> So, let's start with this small area.
>
Sure.
>> Yes, I can submit it via gerrit.
>> As a kernel developer, I am more used to mailing list based reviews
>> but feel free to let me know what works best for you.
>
> Gerrit is the procedure currently used by the gem5 community. Even though I personally find it non-ideal, it is kind of a given for the foreseeable future, and I think the optimal scenario (within the realistic choices) would be if you started upstreaming using that procedure. The other alternative, of which I was afraid before I initially wrote to you, would have been if you had abandoned the project or had no time/energy to do the rebasing / pushing / working with the review, in that case I was thinking about just taking your patches and putting them on Gerrit myself but I can see a whole number of reasons to avoid this.
>
>
Sure, I'll submit the changes via Gerrit.
Aside from rebasing on top of the develop branch, I think it will
be easier for us if I bring all the 32-bit cleanups and fixes to
the beginning of the series and then introduce 64-bit mode followed
by new instructions. The current sequence breaks 32-bit support in
the beginning and then restores it back towards the end. Wondering
if that could be a problem with the CI?
- Sandipan
_______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s
