On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
BTL). It's not that I don't care about IPv6, it's just that I care
more about multi TCP BTL working in the way it is supposed to work.
There'd be less trouble if we all had automatic testing, so nobody
breaks stuff somebody else relies on.
We actually do -- I'm guessing no one has spoken to you about
MTT...? (The MPI Testing Tool) Read the users's section to see how
to get started:
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/mtt/wiki
See, you have committed something that made my internal tests turn
red:
http://cluster.inf-ra.uni-jena.de:8010/
If I just had an URL indicating when *I* break something *you* rely
on.
We run 10's of thousands of tests a night:
http://www.open-mpi.org/mtt/
Username: ompi, password: mtt (will be open someday, just not today)
The results are also mailed out every morning (here's the schedule):
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/mtt/wiki/EmailReportsSchedule
However, I didn't see any failures from UTK regarding TCP. Bill and
I have both been traveling over the past 1.5 weeks, so it's possible
that we missed some failures, but I don't recall any...?
PS: Please read the commit log for the r14544. It explain why I
changed from sockaddr_storage* to sockaddr*.
It doesn't:
Second, the IPv6 RFC suggest to use sockaddr_storage as a holder
for the IP information, but use a sockaddr* when we pass it to
functions.
I don't understand the second part: "but use a sockaddr*". Why?
Does r14550 satisfies your needs?
George: can you reply?
--
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
