That would be great with me! And much appreciated. A design would really help.
On 9/7/06 10:42 AM, "George Bosilca" <bosi...@cs.utk.edu> wrote: > I still wonder why we need any configuration "magic". We don't want > to be the only one around supporting IPv4 OR IPv6. Supporting both of > them simultaneously can be interesting, and it does not require huge > changes. In fact, we have a problem only at the connection step, > everything else will be identically. > > In fact, as we're talking about the TCP layer, we might want to > finish the discussion we had a while ago, about merging the OOB and > the BTL in one component. They do have very similar functions, and > right now we have to maintain 2 components. I think it's more than > time to do the merge, and move the resulting component or whatever > down in the OPAL layer. > > I even volunteer for that. Next week I will be away, so I will come > back with a design for the phone conference on ... well beginning of > october. > > george. > > > On Sep 7, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Ralph H Castain wrote: > >> Jeff and I talked about this for awhile this morning, and we both >> agree >> (yes, I did change my mind after we discussed all the >> ramifications). It >> appears that we should be able to consolidate the code into a single >> component with the right configuration system "magic" - and that would >> definitely be preferable. >> >> My primary concern originally was with the lack of knowledge and >> documentation on the configuration system. I know that I don't know >> enough >> about that system to make everything work in a single component. The >> component method would have allowed you to remain ignorant of that >> system. >> However, with Jeff's willingness to help in that regard, the >> approach he >> recommends would be easier for everyone. >> >> Hope that doesn't cause too much of a problem. >> Ralph >> >> >> On 9/7/06 9:46 AM, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/1/06 12:21 PM, "Adrian Knoth" <a...@drcomp.erfurt.thur.de> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 07:01:25AM -0600, Ralph Castain wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Do you agree to go on with two oob components, tcp and tcp6? >>>>> Yes, I think that's the right approach >>>> >>>> It's a deal. ;) >>> >>> Actually, I would disagree here (sorry for jumping in late! :-( ). >>> >>> Given the amount of code duplication, it seems like a big shame to >>> make a >>> separate component that is almost identical. >>> >>> Can we just have one component that handles both ivp4 and ivp6? >>> Appropriate >>> #if's can be added (I'm willing to help with the configure.m4 mojo >>> -- the >>> stuff to tell OMPI whether ipv4 and/or ipv6 stuff can be found and >>> to set >>> the #define's appropriately). >>> >>> More specifically -- I can help with component / configure / build >>> system >>> issues. I'll defer on the whole how-to-wire-them-up issue for the >>> moment >>> (I've got some other fires burning that must be tended to :-\ ). >>> >>> My $0.02: OOB is the first target to get working -- once you can >>> orterun >>> non-MPI apps properly across ipv6 and/or ipv4 nodes, then move on >>> to the MPI >>> layer and take the same approach there (e.g., one TCP btl with >>> configure.m4 >>> mojo, etc.). >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > "Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other > half may reach you" > Kahlil Gibran > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel