On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:46:53PM -0500, George Bosilca wrote: > Yes, "us" means UTK. Our math folks are pushing hard for this. I'll gladly > accept any help, even if it's only for testing. For development, I dispose > of some of my time and a 100% of a post-doc for few months. I already worked on this for some time and I can spend more time on this. I am mainly interested in working on PML/BTL but there are other parts of MPI that are not related to communication, but still need to be thread safe.
> > However, there are limits to what we can do. We will make sure the BTL > threading requirements are clearly specified, and we will take care of the > BTLs we already worked on (TCP, self, SM, MX). I hope that once the BTL > interface is defined, others can make sure their BTL follow the guidelines. > > Thanks, > george. > > On Nov 28, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> On Nov 28, 2007, at 1:26 PM, George Bosilca wrote: >> >>> There is a priority change for us. >> >> "us" = UTK? >> >>> It's definitively time to have a fully supported MPI_THREAD_MULTIPLE >>> mode in Open MPI. I'm working to figure out how and where to get the >>> cycles for this. I expect to start working on it in January. So, the >>> good news is that 1.3 will have thread support. >> >> That will be great. Do you really think that you can finish the >> THREAD_MULTIPLE work by yourself? >> >> Cisco can provide some resources for testing (in the environments that >> we care about :-) ), but probably not for development. >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> Cisco Systems >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel -- Gleb.
