This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
> I think it is necessary to make a small change to the cpuset API. The
> current API was made fit to allow dynamically sized cpusets. I.e. an
> alloc/modify/free style life cycle. The problem I see is, from where
> should hwloc_cpuset_alloc() get the size of the cpuset? The solution I
> see is to pass the hwloc_topology_t into hwloc_cpuset_alloc(), so that
> the information comes from there .
> I haven't looked through the whole tree, if a hwloc_topology_t is
> always available at places where hwloc_cpuset_alloc() is called.
There's no need to hardwire any cpuset size at all, even if it comes from
the OS instead of from hwloc/config.h. Some students are working on
allocating a single unsigned long first and then dynamically reallocate
more whenever you try to set a bit with a very large index (and possibly
use some sparse allocation model too). I expect the code to be ready for
1.1. Until then, statically allocating 1024 should be enough is the vast
majority of cases.