Brice Goglin, le Thu 12 Nov 2009 18:13:34 +0100, a écrit : > Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> * PLPA-like API is prefixed with hwloc_plpa_ and all functions get a new > >> hwloc_topology_t parameter. The problematic ones are: > >> > >> + int hwloc_plpa_sched_getaffinity(pid_t pid, hwloc_cpuset_t cpuset); > >> > > > > Hmm. I'm a little confused. If we don't provide a drop-in PLPA > > replacement API implementation, what's the point of implementing a > > PLPA-like API? PLPA users will still need to modify their code -- > > shouldn't we be pointing them to the more-powerful hwloc API instead? > > > > There's certainly some desirable PLPA API features that could be > > imported to the HWLOC API -- but I would think that if people want to > > keep using the PLPA API, they can. It just won't [ever] be updated. > > The existing (and future) hwloc API is the migration path forward -- > > I'm not convinced that providing a new API that's halfway between PLPA > > and hwloc is worthwhile... > > Agreed, let's just remove this and tell people to use hwloc_[sg]et_*cpubind.
What do you mean by "this"? The whole plpa.h or just hwloc_plpa_sched_getaffinity? Samuel