Re: [hwloc-devel] rc1?
Just to make it clear: I'm done concerning 1.0 features. Samuel
Re: [hwloc-devel] rc1?
On Apr 6, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Brice Goglin wrote: > > Is everything else set, ABI-wise? > > Just a very minor question: should cpuset_first/last/next/weight return > unsigned instead of int ? They may return -1 in some corner cases, and > even more often in the dynamic-cpuset branch. It would be (unsigned) -1 > then, which isn't so bad when we mean "infinite". My minor preference would be to avoid the cast. But it's a minor preference at best. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
Re: [hwloc-devel] rc1?
Jeff Squyres wrote: > On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Brice Goglin wrote: > > >> By the way, instead of delaying the release while we discuss this and >> wait for your fix, we could mark hwloc_topology_insert_misc*() as >> experimental or even undocument it for now, release 1.0-rc1, and bring >> it back later if/when it's ready. >> > > Sorry, I was out yesterday. > > Is this still your feeling -- want me to roll rc1? > > Is everything else set, ABI-wise? > Just a very minor question: should cpuset_first/last/next/weight return unsigned instead of int ? They may return -1 in some corner cases, and even more often in the dynamic-cpuset branch. It would be (unsigned) -1 then, which isn't so bad when we mean "infinite". Brice
Re: [hwloc-devel] rc1?
On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Brice Goglin wrote: > By the way, instead of delaying the release while we discuss this and > wait for your fix, we could mark hwloc_topology_insert_misc*() as > experimental or even undocument it for now, release 1.0-rc1, and bring > it back later if/when it's ready. Sorry, I was out yesterday. Is this still your feeling -- want me to roll rc1? Is everything else set, ABI-wise? -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
Re: [hwloc-devel] rc1?
Brice Goglin, le Sun 04 Apr 2010 00:32:24 +0200, a écrit : > As I said in the past, we're trying to address 2 > different issues. I said we could have a "Group" type to replace the > current meaning of "Misc" and keep "Misc" for user-added objects only. That's what I meant by "fixing" misc objects, and just did in r1906. > A better solution for backward compatibility would be to keep current > "Misc" objects as is, and change user-added objects to a new type such > as HWLOC_OBJ_USER or CUSTOM. Then only the later needs a quirk in the > ignore code. We have already broken the backward compatibility in a lot of ways, so I believe it's better to just name NUMA and AIX groups as "groups", and not just "misc", so misc can be used for really various things, be it user-provided, top-provided, or plugin-provided, etc. Samuel
Re: [hwloc-devel] rc1?
Samuel Thibault wrote: > Brice Goglin, le Thu 01 Apr 2010 19:13:23 +0200, a écrit : > >> Jeff Squyres wrote: >> >>> There have been a few commits today -- are we ready for rc1? Give me the >>> word and I'll make it. :-) >>> >> I am done now (r1895). >> > > I'd like to fix the MISC objects so they are not ignored. > I don't like where we're going with Misc objects. I don't see why "regular" Misc objects (those added by OS backends) should be handled/ignored differently just because "user-added" Misc objects have special requirements. As I said in the past, we're trying to address 2 different issues. I said we could have a "Group" type to replace the current meaning of "Misc" and keep "Misc" for user-added objects only. A better solution for backward compatibility would be to keep current "Misc" objects as is, and change user-added objects to a new type such as HWLOC_OBJ_USER or CUSTOM. Then only the later needs a quirk in the ignore code. By the way, instead of delaying the release while we discuss this and wait for your fix, we could mark hwloc_topology_insert_misc*() as experimental or even undocument it for now, release 1.0-rc1, and bring it back later if/when it's ready. Brice
Re: [hwloc-devel] rc1?
Brice Goglin, le Thu 01 Apr 2010 19:13:23 +0200, a écrit : > Jeff Squyres wrote: > > There have been a few commits today -- are we ready for rc1? Give me the > > word and I'll make it. :-) > > I am done now (r1895). I'd like to fix the MISC objects so they are not ignored. Samuel, hates seeing his TODO-list so full...
Re: [hwloc-devel] rc1?
Jeff Squyres wrote: > There have been a few commits today -- are we ready for rc1? Give me the > word and I'll make it. :-) > I am done now (r1895). Brice
