Hi Tim, On 08:48 Mon 10 Mar , Timothy A. Meier wrote: > I understand, and agree in principal with the philosophy.
Ok. > In practice, however, this leads to many instances where a pointer to the > opensm object is just being casually added to the argument list of a > function. It is not really needed in most cases. In OpenSM most functions work with some objects, just keep the reference to osm_opensm_t there. > * I just feel that if a function has a legitimate need for the opensm > object, > it shouldn't impose that requirement on its entire calling tree. See above. > No matter how it is created or initialized, the basic design assumes one > and only > one OpenSM object. I don't think so, it is rather opposite IMO. Of course there could be some code which violates this, but looking over history I think the basic design was multi instance ready. > In addition, the OpenSM object contains other objects > (such as > the log) that are also unique. It also can be replaced "on the fly" (I even played with it in a past). > If there comes a time when more than one opensm per thread of execution is > required, > I suspect many things will need to be re-examined. That is true. :( Sasha _______________________________________________ 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
