On Nov 1, 2012, at 19:07 , Nathan Hjelm <hje...@lanl.gov> wrote: > I was going to address this second inconsistency with another patch but now > seems like a good time to get a see if anyone has an opinion about how this > should be fixed. I can think of two simple fixes: > 1) Since mca_base_components_open calls OBJ_CONSTRUCT should > mca_base_components_close call OBJ_DESTRUCT? > 2) Should the caller be responsible for both the OBJ_CONSTRUCT and > OBJ_DESTRUCT calls?
I'm fine either way, but I do have a slight preference for 1. >> - it force us to have one specific output for each framework > > This isn't the case at the moment since frameworks can call opal_output_close > on any extra output streams. It would be better if frameworks have t close > all open output streams using opal_output_close instead of using > mca_base_components_close. If we want to change the semantics of > mca_base_components_close I can redo this patch. Anyone have an opinion on > this? mca_base_components_close should not close an output stream opened by another entity (or if it does the arguments should be changed to int* and it should set it to -1). I think that counts as having an opinion ;) george. > > -Nathan Hjelm > HPC-3, LANL > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
