Remove time units for activeTime and timestamp fields

[aravindksg]

Addresses #197

[aravindksg]

@saik-intel @sanilkumar0 @joshuaranjan @jandres742 @wdamon-intel

[joshuaranjan]

lgtm

[wdamon-intel]

I think “implementation specific” is better. Obfuscation is not a meaning any spec should convey. Another term that might work OK here is “opaque”, but "implementation specific" is preferable. It allows for the most flexibility in terms of implementation, while informing the user that the type or representation of some object or metric is purposefully opaque for their purposes.

________________________________ From: Jaime Arteaga ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6:52:54 PM To: oneapi-src/level-zero-spec ***@***.***> Cc: Damon, Will ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [oneapi-src/level-zero-spec] Remove time units for activeTime and timestamp fields (PR #208) @jandres742 commented on this pull request.

________________________________ In scripts/sysman/engine.yml<#208 (comment)>:

@@ -69,11 +69,13 @@ name: $s_engine_stats_t

members: - type: uint64_t name: "activeTime" - desc: "[out] Monotonic counter for time in microseconds that this resource is actively running workloads." + desc: | + [out] Monotonic counter where the resource is actively running workloads. in terms of specifications, "implementation specific" is more used than "obfuscated". Basically what we are saying is that user shouldn't assume anything about the time units. @wdamon-intel<https://github.com/wdamon-intel> : what do you think? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#208 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A25YXTICFH7OFACSUK6JVO3X3IO4NANCNFSM6AAAAAA4H67J3U>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>