Re: [hwloc-devel] HWLOC_OBJ_GROUP & hwloc_topology_support

2010-04-14 Thread Samuel Thibault
Fawzi Mohamed, le Wed 14 Apr 2010 14:05:45 +0200, a écrit :
> HWLOC_OBJ_GROUP
> 
> I suppose that those groups still form a partition,

Yes.

> I know that was changed also due to my comments, but I am not sure the  
> change really better: the structure is not really hidden, so adding a  
> flags it breaks binary compatibility,

Not when it is added at the end of the structure.

Samuel


[hwloc-devel] HWLOC_OBJ_GROUP & hwloc_topology_support

2010-04-14 Thread Fawzi Mohamed
Always a bit sow, but here are my comments after the latest changes (I  
wake up when I get time to update my bindings...)


HWLOC_OBJ_GROUP

nice!, I like it, it makes my job easier, as one of the main things I  
use hwloc for is exactly having groups of uniform latency.
I suppose that those groups still form a partition, if not it should  
be noted in the documentation.
One should note that a priori nodes of uniform latency do *not* build  
a partition, for example in a ring topology with 4 elements (4,1,2)  
(1,2,3) (2,3,4) (3,4,1) are the groups of uniform latency coming from  
1,2,3,4.
But I guess that breaking the simple partitioning is not a good idea  
in the "normal" hwloc view, and an non partitioning hierarchy is  
better kept separated.


hwloc_topology_support

I know that was changed also due to my comments, but I am not sure the  
change really better: the structure is not really hidden, so adding a  
flags it breaks binary compatibility, well it is not as bad as it  
sounds, because the normally the structure should be only read, and  
one receives only pointers, not directly the structure, so even using  
old bindings should not really lead to catastrophic failures, but I  
find it still non clean.
With a user visible structure I find enum flags bla=(1<