On Nov 12, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > 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?
My $0.02 / 0.01EUR: let's not try to emulate the PLPA API at all
(i.e., no hwloc_plpa_* functions). Let's just take any good ideas
that were there and incorporate them into the future of the hwloc API
as appropriate.
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
