Conversation
Signed-off-by: wangxiyuan <wangxiyuan1007@gmail.com>
Summary of ChangesHello @wangxiyuan, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request streamlines the Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request removes the patch_bert.py file and its corresponding import. This patch was a workaround for hardware limitations that are presumably now resolved. The change is a straightforward code cleanup.
While the code change itself is fine, the pull request title and description do not follow the repository's contribution guidelines. The title should be formatted as [Branch][Module][Action] Title, and the description template should be filled out to provide context for the change. Adhering to these guidelines is important for project maintainability. For example, a more descriptive title could be [main][Worker][Refactor] Remove obsolete BERT patch. The description should clarify why this patch is no longer needed and how the change was tested.
…oject#6129) ### What this PR does / why we need it? **Scope of Changes**: | File Path | | :--- | | vllm_ascend/ops/\_\_init\_\_.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/activation.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/flashcomm2_oshard_manager.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/layernorm.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/mla.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/mm_encoder_attention.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/register_custom_ops.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/vocab_parallel_embedding.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/weight_prefetch.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/\_\_init\_\_.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/eagle_proposer.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/interface.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/mtp_proposer.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/ngram_proposer.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/suffix_proposer.py | ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? ### How was this patch tested? - vLLM version: v0.13.0 - vLLM main: vllm-project/vllm@d682094 Signed-off-by: MrZ20 <2609716663@qq.com> Signed-off-by: SILONG ZENG <2609716663@qq.com>
…llm-project#6129)" This reverts commit 4fb3d5e.
…m-project#6604) ### What this PR does / why we need it? **Scope of Changes**: | File Path | | :--- | | vllm_ascend/ops/\_\_init\_\_.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/activation.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/flashcomm2_oshard_manager.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/layernorm.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/mla.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/mm_encoder_attention.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/register_custom_ops.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/vocab_parallel_embedding.py | | vllm_ascend/ops/weight_prefetch.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/\_\_init\_\_.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/eagle_proposer.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/interface.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/mtp_proposer.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/ngram_proposer.py | | vllm_ascend/spec_decode/suffix_proposer.py | ### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change? ### How was this patch tested? - vLLM version: v0.15.0 - vLLM main: vllm-project/vllm@d7e17aa Signed-off-by: MrZ20 <2609716663@qq.com>
What this PR does / why we need it?
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
How was this patch tested?