-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 788
[NFCI][SYCL] Refactor device selection in platform_impl.cpp #12288
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
aelovikov-intel
merged 10 commits into
intel:sycl
from
aelovikov-intel:refactor-amend-dev
Jan 5, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
cea5abd
early continue for "if (deviceMatch)"
aelovikov-intel f7db2b2
"if (wantSubDevice)" is always true here
aelovikov-intel 87f0652
Early continue instead of "else"
aelovikov-intel 2382d5b
More CFG restructuring for top/sub/subsub device partitioning
aelovikov-intel 47a78cc
Early continue for "(PlatformBackend == TargetBackend || TargetBacken…
aelovikov-intel 9e04fbf
More refactoring + comments adjustments
aelovikov-intel 4615fde
Early continue in platform_impl::filterDeviceFilter for FilterBackend…
aelovikov-intel f951846
Early continues in place of "!Filter.DeviceNum || DeviceNum ==
aelovikov-intel d97d989
Hoist common early continues
aelovikov-intel f9a1377
More refactoring in platform_impl::filterDeviceFilter
aelovikov-intel File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I understand these and other prints are actually diagnosing errors (e.g. trying to partition a device that is not partitionable). Is my understanding correct? If so, I wonder if just printing and keep going as if nothing happened is good enough as a diagnostic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
They were here before me, any changes in the behavior should go into a separate PR :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I saw they were already there in the old version, and I agree that it should be a separate PR if we change that, but I wanted to bring up the debate. What do you think? Should we keep diagnostics as they are now? Or should we stop if we find an error?
I'm approving this PR since we agreed this should go into a separate PR, if we do anything about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I honestly would expect an exception thrown, but maybe @cperkinsintel had his reasons to implement it this way (I assume it was added as part of his major work in this area).