James Lentini wrote:
Comments below:
-
+# version-info current:revision:age
What does this comment do?
just a comment regarding revisioning.
#
-# This example shows netdev name, enabling administrator to use same copy
across cluster
+# Add examples for multiple interfaces and IPoIB HA fail over, and bonding
The previous line is TODO, right? I'd suggest annotating it with that
text to make it clear to users.
ok
--- a/test/dtest/dtest.c
+++ b/test/dtest/dtest.c
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
#include <inttypes.h>
#ifndef DAPL_PROVIDER
-#define DAPL_PROVIDER "OpenIB-cma"
+#define DAPL_PROVIDER "OpenIB-2-cma"
Should we update OpenIB to ofa? Obviously, this isn't necessary as
part of this change
I didn't want to change the 1.2 names for compatibility reasons but for
2.0 we could move to ofa names for both libraries and provider names.
For example, libdaplcma.so becomes libdaplofa.so, OpenIB-cma becomes ofa.
For example dat.conf 2.0 entries would look like this:
ofa u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib0 0" ""
ofa-1 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib1 0" ""
ofa-2 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib2 0" ""
ofa-3 u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "ib3 0" ""
ofa-bond u2.0 nonthreadsafe default libdaplofa.so dapl.2.0 "bond0 0" ""
Is that what you had in mind?
-arlin
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
