****************************************
Reviewer #1 Comments
****************************************
the paper modifies the scheduler from the EPOS OS, allowing it to be implemented both in hardware and in
software using the same code. The approach is interesting and shows a good implementation in both case,
close to hand-optimized RTL in hardware and with little loss in the software implementation when compared
to the original version.

It is not clear from the paper how the methodology was applied and why it is better than others. The result
of comparable performance and size with the same code is impressive but it is not apparent how it can be
replicated in other uses. The limitation addressed in the code comes from the toolchain (null pointer) and
the inclusion of a wrapper that produces a single pointer of entry. Is the simplicity of the modification
an artifact of the scheduler code or it derives from the code following the recommendations of the
methodology?.


****************************************
Reviewer #2 Comments
****************************************
The design, implementation and evaluation of a resource scheduler with a single C++ description, is presented
in this paper. The topic is interesting, and the problem discussed is important. The major concern of this
paper is that how the proposed scheduler manages both hardware and software, and what the advantage is by
using single language. There is a lot of prior work for high-level synthesis of schedulers as authors
mentioned. The advantage and features of the proposed mechanism shall be explained and evaluated by
comparing with the other approaches.


****************************************
Reviewer #3 Comments
****************************************
The paper describes the design and implementation of a resource scheduler from a C++ description.

The paper is more like a case study mostly using available tools in hand. The development of the HW/SW
resource schedular is not very clear to show the originality of the work. The result section doesn't compare
to any other previous work.

It is not clear if the last two paragraphs of the paper are part of the Conclusion. It just seems that they
came out from no where. You should not have new ideas in the conclusion section.