-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 124
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
Remove ur_base_desc_t, use ur_base_properties_t instead. #1134
Conversation
@jandres742 it looks like UR inherited this design from level zero, do you have any insight on why two base structs were used, and if there's a good reason to keep them for UR? |
@aarongreig : I dont recall exactly, but I think original idea is that base_desc and base_properties could have other base fields added in the future, specific to descriptors and properties, besides pNext and stype. but as you mention. I think change is good and would reduce code cluttering. |
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 don't have an opinion on the change as a whole, but the modifications to command-buffers are good.
I have updated the target branch of this PR from the |
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.
LGTM for level zero
The definitions of these two base structs are slightly different which potentially has weird consequences if a given pNext chain contains extension structs derived from both. Unifying these structs removes the possibility of their definitions drifting further apart and prevents the mixed pNext chain scenario.
ce3ac87
to
ba78d27
Compare
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.
LGTM for HIP and CUDA
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.
LGTM
Unified Runtime -> intel/llvm Repo Move NoticeInformationThe source code of Unified Runtime has been moved to intel/llvm under the unified-runtime top-level directory, The code will be mirrored to oneapi-src/unified-runtime and the specification will continue to be hosted at oneapi-src.github.io/unified-runtime. The contribution guide has been updated with new instructions for contributing to Unified Runtime. PR MigrationAll open PRs including this one will be labelled auto-close and shall be automatically closed after 30 days. Should you wish to continue with your PR you will need to migrate it to intel/llvm. This is an automated comment. |
Unified Runtime -> intel/llvm Repo Move NoticeFollowing on from the previous notice, we have now enabled workflows to automatically label and close PRs because the Unified Runtime source code has moved to intel/llvm. This PR has now been marked with the Please review the previous notice for more information, including assistance with migrating your PR to intel/llvm. Should there be a reason for this PR to remain open, manually remove the This is an automated comment. |
Automatic PR Closure NoticeInformationThis PR has been closed automatically. It was marked with the All Unified Runtime development should be done in intel/llvm, details can be found in the updated contribution guide. Next StepsShould you wish to re-open this PR it must be moved to intel/llvm. We have provided a script to help automate this process, otherwise no actions are required. This is an automated comment. |
The definitions of these two base structs are slightly different which potentially has weird consequences if a given pNext chain contains extension structs derived from both. Unifying these structs removes the possibility of their definitions drifting further apart and prevents the mixed pNext chain scenario.