Skip to content

Remove ExecutionPolicy template param from internal oneDPL buffers #2146

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

Conversation

SergeyKopienko
Copy link
Contributor

@SergeyKopienko SergeyKopienko commented Mar 26, 2025

In this PR we remove ExecutionPolicy template param from internal oneDPL buffers as not required:

  • from __buffer template aliases;
  • from class __buffer_impl (both implementations);
  • from __buffer instances in oneDPL code.

@SergeyKopienko SergeyKopienko force-pushed the dev/skopienko/remove_execution_policy_from_buffers branch from 79a700a to e06d4c1 Compare March 27, 2025 08:59
@SergeyKopienko SergeyKopienko force-pushed the dev/skopienko/remove_execution_policy_from_buffers branch from b2bce95 to 5cf5f59 Compare March 27, 2025 09:09
Copy link
Contributor

@danhoeflinger danhoeflinger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, this LGTM.
I think this in line with the offline decision to remove Policy from touching bricks, etc. where it is not needed.
If a future parallel backend requires ExecutionPolicy to be passed in, then we will need to figure out how to handle that then.

Copy link
Contributor

@MikeDvorskiy MikeDvorskiy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@SergeyKopienko SergeyKopienko merged commit a3f112b into main Mar 27, 2025
19 checks passed
@SergeyKopienko SergeyKopienko deleted the dev/skopienko/remove_execution_policy_from_buffers branch March 27, 2025 18:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants