Then let's just be patient until OPAL_SOS make it in the trunk, and save us the burden of a large effort made twice.
george. On Mar 5, 2010, at 22:35 , Ralph Castain wrote: > > On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:22 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > >> On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: >> >>>> I agree with Jeff's comments about the BTL_ERROR. How about a middle >>>> ground here? We let the BTLs use BTL_ERROR, eventually with some >>>> modifications, and we redirect the BTL_ERROR to a more advanced macro >>>> including support for orte_show_help? This will require going over all the >>>> BTLs, but on the bright side it will give us a 100% consistency on >>>> retorting errors. >>> >>> Sounds reasonable to me - I'm happy to help do it, assuming Jeff also >>> concurs. I assume we would then replace all the show_help calls as well? >>> Otherwise, I'm not sure what we gain as the direct orte_show_help >>> dependency will remain. Or are those calls too specialized to be replaced >>> with BTL_ERROR? >> >> Should this kind of thing wait for OPAL_SOS? >> >> (I mention this because the OPAL_SOS RFC will be sent to devel Real Soon >> Now...) > > Sure - OPAL_SOS will supersede all this anyway. > >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquy...@cisco.com >> For corporate legal information go to: >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
