Simplify OwnerRRef completion #57853
Closed
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
A bunch of methods received an OwnerRRef to "fill in". I think it will be more flexible to do it the other way around, and have these methods return a value (wrapped in a Future), which can then be "connected" to an OwnerRRef, but which can also potentially be consumed in different ways. Differential Revision: [D28253844](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D28253844/) [ghstack-poisoned]
lw
requested review from
H-Huang,
mingzhe09088,
mrshenli,
pritamdamania87,
rohan-varma,
wayi1 and
zhaojuanmao
as code owners
💊 CI failures summary and remediationsAs of commit 7eab08e (more details on the Dr. CI page):
🕵️ 1 new failure recognized by patternsThe following CI failures do not appear to be due to upstream breakages:
|
| Job | Step | Action |
|---|---|---|
 pytorch_linux_xenial_py3_clang5_asan_test1 |
Run tests | 🔁 rerun |
This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI (expand for details).
Follow this link to opt-out of these comments for your Pull Requests.Please report bugs/suggestions to the (internal) Dr. CI Users group.
facebook-github-bot
added
the
oncall: distributed
This was referenced May 7, 2021
Closed
A bunch of methods received an OwnerRRef to "fill in". I think it will be more flexible to do it the other way around, and have these methods return a value (wrapped in a Future), which can then be "connected" to an OwnerRRef, but which can also potentially be consumed in different ways. Differential Revision: [D28253844](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D28253844/) [ghstack-poisoned]
A bunch of methods received an OwnerRRef to "fill in". I think it will be more flexible to do it the other way around, and have these methods return a value (wrapped in a Future), which can then be "connected" to an OwnerRRef, but which can also potentially be consumed in different ways. Differential Revision: [D28253844](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D28253844/) [ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced May 17, 2021
A bunch of methods received an OwnerRRef to "fill in". I think it will be more flexible to do it the other way around, and have these methods return a value (wrapped in a Future), which can then be "connected" to an OwnerRRef, but which can also potentially be consumed in different ways. Differential Revision: [D28253844](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D28253844/) [ghstack-poisoned]
A bunch of methods received an OwnerRRef to "fill in". I think it will be more flexible to do it the other way around, and have these methods return a value (wrapped in a Future), which can then be "connected" to an OwnerRRef, but which can also potentially be consumed in different ways. Differential Revision: [D28253844](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D28253844/) [ghstack-poisoned]
A bunch of methods received an OwnerRRef to "fill in". I think it will be more flexible to do it the other way around, and have these methods return a value (wrapped in a Future), which can then be "connected" to an OwnerRRef, but which can also potentially be consumed in different ways. Differential Revision: [D28253844](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D28253844/) [ghstack-poisoned]
This was referenced May 20, 2021
A bunch of methods received an OwnerRRef to "fill in". I think it will be more flexible to do it the other way around, and have these methods return a value (wrapped in a Future), which can then be "connected" to an OwnerRRef, but which can also potentially be consumed in different ways. Differential Revision: [D28253844](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D28253844/) [ghstack-poisoned]
dgl-intel
pushed a commit
to dgl-intel/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
May 21, 2021
Pull Request resolved: pytorch#57853 A bunch of methods received an OwnerRRef to "fill in". I think it will be more flexible to do it the other way around, and have these methods return a value (wrapped in a Future), which can then be "connected" to an OwnerRRef, but which can also potentially be consumed in different ways. ghstack-source-id: 129567059 Differential Revision: [D28253844](https://our.internmc.facebook.com/intern/diff/D28253844/)
|
This pull request has been merged in 60fc373. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Stack from ghstack:
A bunch of methods received an OwnerRRef to "fill in". I think it will be more flexible to do it the other way around, and have these methods return a value (wrapped in a Future), which can then be "connected" to an OwnerRRef, but which can also potentially be consumed in different ways.
Differential Revision: D28253844