Hi Eitan, While I don't understand why the update for 1.8.0 can't be done by patches which is the usual way (I think it could be broken at least into complib, then vendor lib, then SM, and finally SA changes), I will work on merging Yael's branch for this. Note that there may be some back and forth on this similar to comments on patches. In the future, I hope that work can be done in smaller incremental pieces and with patches.
As to the directory structure, there are projects which follow the structure which is being used in the OpenIB tree. The makefiles already do install the headers. That being said the directory structure is not cast in stone but there is a lot of churn here to change it. Are there any other clear benefits ? Does it somehow make your internal development easier ? If that is it, I don't see why a correspondence script wouldn't work. Typically things like this are community decided. I would think the simulator work is separable and would prefer to hold off on this until the OpenSM merge is done and working. That alone seems like a lot to swallow at once. Finally, as to feedback on the proposals for OpenSM work, as I recall, there were responses from both Tom and myself both being supportive of new functionality and some design review issues (particularly relating to routing algorithms proposed). I would expect this work to generate more feedback as there is code to go along with it or possibly even with an update on the design approach. -- Hal _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
