-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 484
GPU TPC: Reject clusters with too small radius during refit instead of giving them IFC mask errors #13684
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
Conversation
|
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION RELEASES: This will add The following labels are available |
…f giving them IFC mask errors
97e15ba to
3e9e10e
Compare
|
@shahor02 : Please use |
|
Thanks! Will try to test tomorrow. |
|
Just tried it, and seems to work. I get same TPC standalone efficiency with somewhat reduced number of clusters, running in MC with larger removal radius. Didn't try with real data. If it works for you, you can just merge it. |
|
Does not cleanly apply to async-v1-01-branch. For now, I did not add it. |
|
Hello @shahor02 , Why is this flagged for apass4 PbPb 2023? Data were reconstructed without this feature, should we not have MC done in the same way? The fix for the int length was already ported. Chiara |
|
Removing async-2024-PbPb-cpass0, since cpass0 is over. |
|
Hi @davidrohr, When I try to port this PR for PbPb apass4 of 2023 data I get conflicts (see below). Can you please have a look and fix it? ERROR: There was a problem cherry-picking dcb767f |
|
@alcaliva I've wrongly added the 2023 apass4 label to this and a few other PRs, I thought @chiarazampolli has already removed it. Doing this now: since the apass4 is over we don't need to backport. |
@shahor02 : This should do what you want, but couldn't test it yet since my O2 is not compiling right now. Will fix that and then test it.