Skip to content
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

Migrate ClusterTPAssociationHeterogeneous to the new framework #346

Merged

Conversation

fwyzard
Copy link

@fwyzard fwyzard commented May 13, 2019

No description provided.

@fwyzard
Copy link
Author

fwyzard commented May 13, 2019

Split #324, part 8 of 8.

@fwyzard fwyzard force-pushed the Migrate_ClusterTPAssociationHeterogeneous branch from 94061f4 to afa98f4 Compare May 13, 2019 14:11
@fwyzard fwyzard changed the title Migrate ClusterTPAssociationHeterogeneous to the new heterogeneous framework Migrate ClusterTPAssociationHeterogeneous to the new framework May 13, 2019
heterogeneous::GPUCuda, heterogeneous::CPU>>
{
class ClusterTPAssociationHeterogeneous
: public HeterogeneousEDProducer<heterogeneous::HeterogeneousDevices<heterogeneous::GPUCuda, heterogeneous::CPU>> {

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ClusterTPAssociationHeterogeneous seems to stay HeterogeneousEDProducer, so the title of this PR is misleading.

By cursory look this PR introduces the TrackingRecHit2DCUDA, and migrates the CklusterTPAssociationHeterogeneous do use that. The hit-producing code SiPixelRecHitHeterogeneous appears to still produce HeterogeneousProduct, so there is nothing that would produce TrackingRecHit2DCUDA.

Should this PR also include the migration of SiPixelRecHitHeterogeneous to the new framework?

@fwyzard
Copy link
Author

fwyzard commented May 13, 2019

@makortel this PR is actually supposed to be one of the last steps if #338 ; does it look better in that context ?

@makortel
Copy link

this PR is actually supposed to be one of the last steps if #338 ; does it look better in that context ?

Sort of yes, but I just assumed that this PR would have been self-contained as it was split from #324/#338 (as all the other similar PRs were, right?).

@fwyzard fwyzard added the Pixels Pixels-related developments label May 15, 2019
@fwyzard fwyzard merged commit 3c590fa into CMSSW_10_6_X_Patatrack May 15, 2019
@fwyzard fwyzard deleted the Migrate_ClusterTPAssociationHeterogeneous branch May 15, 2019 09:44
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Pixels Pixels-related developments
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants