Bert Wesarg, le Sat 27 Mar 2010 09:31:40 +0100, a écrit : > 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.
Mmm, but I guess we shouldn't use the same kind of object for those, since you can not bind usual processes and threads on them. Samuel
