On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 01:50, Jeff Squyres <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > 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".
"PU" may also be a little future safe, when GPU cores become common. Bert > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > hwloc-devel mailing list > hwloc-de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/hwloc-devel >
