[WIP] Add Provisioner #2159
[WIP] Add Provisioner #2159
Conversation
gcatron
force-pushed
the
create_provisioner
branch
from
310322e to
d241bd1
Compare
| /// DeviceManager and uses the returned networkID to populate \p runDAG. | ||
| /// Returns a ResultCode indicating if the operation was a success. | ||
| ResultCode provision(dependencyDAG &networks, executionDAG &runDAG, | ||
| std::unordered_map<int, DeviceManager> &devices); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After this stage, does runDAG keep all the sub-modues and DAG used for execution? I"dependencyDAG &networks" is not needed anymore ?
In addition, I think the class HostManager need to be updated based on current discussion :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no runDAG is an executionDAG so it contains the dependencies and networkIDs. After this stage the sub-modules should all be loaded onto the devices so the host does not need to keep them around.
I agree! The HM is quite out of date, I plan to update it once the other components have settled.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd suggest defining a typealias like DeviceManagersMap instead of using the explicit unordered_map here.
| FAILED, | ||
| CANCELLED | ||
| }; // This will be defined in one common runtime place. | ||
| class executionDAG; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
vertical whitespace here?
| class executionDAG; | ||
| class dependencyDAG; | ||
| class DeviceManager; | ||
| /// The Provisioner is responsible for assigning networks to an actual device. |
| FAILED, | ||
| CANCELLED | ||
| }; // This will be defined in one common runtime place. | ||
| class executionDAG; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you move the forward declarations right after the line namespace glow {? It looks better that way and we usually put forward declarations at the very top.
| /// devices. The Provisioner calls the addNetwork method for each | ||
| /// DeviceManager and uses the returned networkID to populate \p runDAG. | ||
| /// Returns a ResultCode indicating if the operation was a success. | ||
| ResultCode provision(dependencyDAG &networks, executionDAG &runDAG, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
dependencyDAG and executionDAG are type names. They should start with uppercase.
| /// DeviceManager and uses the returned networkID to populate \p runDAG. | ||
| /// Returns a ResultCode indicating if the operation was a success. | ||
| ResultCode provision(dependencyDAG &networks, executionDAG &runDAG, | ||
| std::unordered_map<int, DeviceManager> &devices); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd suggest defining a typealias like DeviceManagersMap instead of using the explicit unordered_map here.
| // On success add the deviceID to the executionDAG | ||
| // If a module fails to provision try on a different device if available. | ||
|
|
||
| }; |
| #include <unordered_map> | ||
|
|
||
| namespace glow { | ||
| enum ResultCode { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doxygen comment for ResultCode?
|
Wasn't paying attention and this got a little unwieldy. I'm keeping it open for now, but I intend to create a new cleaner PR when the provisioner is ready. |
|
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed in 5 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions. |
|
Closing as a new PR #2276 has been made. |
Description: This is the interface for the Runtime Provisioner, implementation to follow.
Testing: not yet
Documentation: N/A
Related to #2045