On Sep 21, 2016, at 10:56 AM, George Bosilca <bosi...@icl.utk.edu> wrote: > > No, because 127.x.x.x is by default part of the exclude, so it will never get > into the modex. The problem today, is that even if you manually remove it > from the exclude and add it to the include, it will not work, because of the > hardcoded checks. Once we remove those checks, things will work the way we > expect, interfaces are removed because they don't match the provided > addresses.
Gotcha. > I would have agreed with you if the current code was doing a better decision > of what is local and what not. But it is not, it simply remove all 127.x.x.x > interfaces (opal/util/net.c:222). Thus, the only thing the current code does, > is preventing a power-user from using the loopback (despite being explicitly > enabled via the corresponding MCA parameters). Fair enough. Should we have a keyword that can be used in the btl_tcp_if_include/exclude (e.g., "local") that removes all local-only interfaces? I.E., all 127.x.x.x/8 interfaces *and* all local-only interfaces (e.g., bridging interfaces to local VMs and the like)? We could then replace the default "127.0.0.0/8" value in btl_tcp_if_exclude with this token, and therefore actually exclude the VM-only interfaces (which have caused some users problems in the past). -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
