On Monday, November 22, 2010 05:57:34 pm Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le Mon 22 Nov 2010 17:33:15 +0100, a écrit :
> > > -- using "p" is a good way to indicate "physical". But IIRC, we didn't
> > > like "l" (for "logical") because it looks too much like 1 (one).
> > >
> > > I think we're open to having some kind of indication to denote
> > > "logical" instead of "physical" -- any suggestions? Perhaps P and L
> > > (vs. p and l)?
> > P/L can be better than p/l, yes. Just "PU #0" is indeed probably not
> > precise enough, and "PU L#0" will make people wonder why the L, and then
> > understand why. I guess we can try to add this to an rc4.
> Thinking again about it: can't we just switch only lstopo to physical
> numbering by default, and only for the drawn part? The textual
> output (lstopo -) displays both anyway. We wanted to use logical
> numbering by default to be coherent with other hwloc tools, but the
> graphical/semigraphical lstopo one is very particular (I hope nobody is
> crazy enough to parse its output), and in almost all cases people will
> want physical numbering by default, other cases can be obtained through
> -l. I'd even say 1.0.3 should switch too (v0.9 was only using physical
> numbering in lstopo).
> hwloc-devel mailing list
I do support your last idea to switch only lstopo to the physical numbering.
I would also like to ask you to consider adding the Title to the graphical
output so that users can distinguish easily if the graphics was created with
--physical or --logical numbering.
Adding single line to the top of graphics which says:
"This graphics is using [physical|logical] numbering. See man hwloc for
would make it clear.