Jeff, The changes as described in the commit message make good sense to me except for one thing:
In the 1.7 branch there is still a defined(__WINDOWS__) case for which opal_path_nfs() is currently a no-op . So, I fear that if CMR'ed blindly both the configure-time and build-time checks to ensure that at least one of statfs() or statvs() will abort the build on Windows. Maybe Marco can say more on the subject, but I think Cygwin will detect one or both of the stat calls, but opal_path_nfs() will still be a no-op due to the __WINDOWS__ guard. I'll be building tonight's trunk tarball on all of my Solaris and *BSD systems. So, I can at least confirm that the code builds (finds at least one of statfs() or statvfs()) on each platform. However, only my Solaris (10/SPARC and 11/x86-64) systems have NFS-mounted filesystems. So, I don't have any means to ensure that the "newly active" code performs correctly on the BSD systems. In other words, opal_path_nfs() might continue to always return false on BSD systems and I'd not know the difference. -Paul P.S. the commit message says "modern flavors of *BSD OSs no longer define __BSD", but the FreeBSD-6.3 (circa 2008) system I also test doesn't define __BSD either. So, I wonder if this code ever did worked as intended on the BSD systems. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com>wrote: > Fixed on trunk in https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/30198. > > I can't test on all the kinds of systems Paul/Marco have, though -- we'll > have to see what happens when he tries. > > > On Jan 9, 2014, at 10:36 AM, Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> wrote: > > > I fully concur - just limited by my available time to fix it. Jeff has > volunteered to step in, though. > > > > On Jan 8, 2014, at 11:44 PM, marco atzeri <marco.atz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Il 1/9/2014 5:10 AM, Ralph Castain ha scritto: > >>> Actually, as I look at it, the logic escapes me anyway. Basically, you > >>> only have two options - use the vfs struct for Sun, and use fs struct > >>> for everything else. I'm not aware of any other choice, and indeed the > >>> list of all the systems for the latter actually is intended to amount > to > >>> "anything else". > >>> > >>> So I just changed it to an "else" statement in the trunk and scheduled > >>> it for 1.7.4 if it passes muster - see how this works for you. > >>> > >>> Ralph > >>> > >> > >> Ralph, > >> please note that there are other similar cases in the same file > >> > >> in "bool opal_path_nfs" function at row 434 and 462 > >> > >> the one at 489 is a multiple if with no default case, > >> so the code will fail to perform for any architecture > >> no reported there, like CYGWIN, and it is very hard to notice > >> > >> In general this type of "ifdefined" around platform > >> are very bad for portability or platform evolution. > >> Adding a new platform will be a hell of work. > >> > >> The Autoconf approach to portability "should be" to test > >> for features, not for versions or platform. > >> > >> Regards > >> Marco > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > -- > 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 > -- Paul H. Hargrove phhargr...@lbl.gov Future Technologies Group Computer and Data Sciences Department Tel: +1-510-495-2352 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Fax: +1-510-486-6900
