Jeff Squyres wrote:
> 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
>> > > and hwloc is worthwhile...
>> > Agreed, let's just remove this and tell people to use
>> What do you mean by "this"? The whole plpa.h or just
> 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.
Well, the list of good ideas will be very short then :) Most remaining
functions are about manipulating core and socket ids, we don't need that
at all in hwloc anymore.
My feeling is that converting an application from PLPA's
core_id/socket_id API into the hwloc API will be non-trivial. So at
least the current hwloc_plpa_* functions will be document a bit how to
switch to the hwloc API.