On Oct 15, 2014, at 8:08 PM, Gilles Gouaillardet <gilles.gouaillar...@iferc.org> wrote:
> Ralph, > > let me quickly reply about this one : > > On 2014/10/16 12:00, Ralph Castain wrote: >> I also don't understand some of the changes in this commit. For example, why >> did you replace the OPAL_MODEX_SEND_STRING macro with essentially a >> hard-coded replica of that macro? > OPAL_MODEX_SEND_STRING put a key of type OPAL_BYTE_OBJECT > > in ompi_proc_complete_init: > OPAL_MODEX_RECV_VALUE(ret, OPAL_DSTORE_ARCH, > (opal_proc_t*)&proc->super, > (void**)&ui32ptr, OPAL_UINT32); > > a key of type OPAL_UINT32 is expected, and an key of type > OPAL_BYTE_OBJECT was sent > > i chose to "fix" the sender (e.g. send a key of type OPAL_UINT32) > > should i have "fixed" the receiver instead ? Hmmm...probably the receiver, but let me take a look at it. The two should have mirrored each other, which is why I couldn't understand the change. The problem may be that the recv should be recv_string, but I need to look at the two macros and see why the mirrors weren't used. >> Would you mind reverting this until we can better understand what is going >> on, and decide on a path forward? > no problem > based on my previous comment, shall i also revert the change in > ompi/proc/proc.c as well ? I'd revert the commit as a whole. Let's look at the hetero issue in its entirety and figure out how we want to handle it. Thanks Ralph > > Cheers, > > Gilles > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > Subscription: http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > Link to this post: > http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2014/10/16049.php
