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

Reply via email to