On Sep 23, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote: > I unfortunately don't have many cycles to think about this before Oct 1, but > I'm still a little concerned about the portability aspects of having hwloc be > a first class citizen of OMPI - if we support a platform hwloc doesn't, that > seems like it will still cause problems...
Fair enough. I s'ppose we could put it in ompi/mca/common/hwloc and just let whoever link against it who wants to (e.g., individual components). Heck, we could just as well put hwloc down in opal -- e.g., opal/mca/common. Or something like that; maybe keep it up in opal/hwloc, but don't slurp it into libopen-pal -- just let things link against libhwloc_embedded if they want to. Then even ORTE things could use hwloc, if desirable. So could paffinity/hwloc. Hmm. There's probably both pros and cons to this approach. Need to think about that a bit... -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
