On Mar 26, 2010, at 5:35 PM, Brice Goglin wrote: > > Fair enough. How about still just keeping "P" in the graphic output, then? > > But "processor" in the prettyprint? > > IIRC, somebody said "PU" (for "processing unit") could be a good > solution. Otherwise, I am ok with "Proc" or "Processor", with a small > preference for the former.
I think I still am uncomfortable with "proc" because it's too much like "process". But that could be just me. PU might be suitable. > By the way, this is also what hwloc_type_string() would return. Unless > we keep it unchanged and just hack lstopo to use its own stringified > type name ? I wouldn't mind the hack (too much), but it does seem a little inelegant. If we hate everything else, let's settle on "PU". -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
