Changing kernel names to be compatible with latest dpl/pstl #989
Conversation
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
Alexander-Makaryev
requested review from
densmirn,
KsanaKozlova and
LukichevaPolina
densmirn
reviewed
Oct 4, 2021
I think that adding number in classs name is more clear and common way. It is not only DPL or not DPL functions but about kernel naming in summary. |
|
np, let it be |
densmirn
approved these changes
Oct 4, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
As DPL/PSTL developers say, the correct way is to provide such unique classes for naming in each kernel. They can be removed at all, but in this case name for kernel will be generated automatically and it will be very long and impossible to read.
I tried to do so and debug become a hell.)