Ok. I've been somewhat following this... and here's my input.
I like option #1. I truly believe that this is an edge case... if you are
doing this much advanced stuff then you can worry about clearing your
preconditioner first. I don't like the idea that ANY user providing a custom
precondit
Cc:ing this to Derek to make sure he doesn't miss this one; I think
he's done the most libMesh work with custom preconditioners most
recently and he might have thoughts or see concerns we're missing.
My own thoughts:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Tim Kroeger wrote:
> One problem just popped up with the
One problem just popped up with the subset stuff: PetscLinearSolver
keeps the _pc object constant across solves (... perhaps that was the
reason for using SAME_NONZERO_PATTERN?) unless
PetscLinearSolver::clear() is called in between. When the subset on
which to solve is changed, however, this
