Re: [OMPI devel] v1.3 RM: need a ruling
Ralph H Castain wrote: On 7/11/08 7:48 AM, "Terry Dontje" wrote: Jeff Squyres wrote: Check that -- Ralph and I talked more about #1383 and have come up with a decent/better solution that a) is not wonky and b) does not involve MCA parameter synonyms. We're working on it in an hg and will put it back when done (probably within a business day or three). So I think the MCA synonym stuff *isn't* needed for v1.3 after all. I am not dead yet!!! So, there was also the name change of pls_rsh_agent to plm_rsh_agent because the pls's were sucked into plm's (or so I believe). Anyways, this seems like another case to support synonyms. Also are there other pls mca parameters that have had their names changed to plm? I think you're opening a really ugly can of worms. How far back do you want to go? v1.0? v0.1? We have a history of changing mca param names across major releases, so trying to keep everything alive could well become a nightmare. I am only asking to be compatible with the last release (however that might have an interpretation of inifinity :-). Seriously, though I think we need to be very careful about renaming mca parameters because this will screw production sites and ISV's which use scripts to launch their apps. So a change could render their scripts useless (the paffinity param is a perfect example of this). I don't really want to promote keeping everything alive forever but in cases where the only change is a 3-4 letter prefix it almost looks random to people outside of the community. I would hate to try and figure out all the changes - and what about the params that simply have disappeared, or had their functionality absorbed by some combination of other params? So, I think if a functionality is not supported or the way you drive it is completely different then I agree with you trying to support a round peg to fit in a square hole is silly. But if the feature is one for one except in name only then I think we need to ask ourselves if we really want/need to drop the original name. My head aches already... :-) Take two aspirins... --td Ralph --td I think the MCA param synonyms and "deprecated" stuff is useful for the future, but at this point, nothing in v1.3 would use it. So my $0.02 is that we should leave it out. On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: K, will do. Note that it turns out that we did not yet solve the mpi_paffinity_alone issue, but we're working on it. I'm working on the IOF issue ATM; will return to mpi_paffinity_alone in a bit... On Jul 10, 2008, at 1:56 PM, George Bosilca wrote: I'm 100% with Brad on this. Please go ahead and include this feature in the 1.3. george. On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Brad Benton wrote: I think this is very reasonable to go ahead and include for 1.3. I find that preferable to a 1.3-specific "wonky" workaround. Plus, this sounds like something that is very good to have in general. --brad On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: v1.3 RMs: Due to some recent work, the MCA parameter mpi_paffinity_alone disappeared -- it was moved and renamed to be opal_paffinity_alone. This is Bad because we have a lot of historical precent based on the MCA param name "mpi_paffinity_alone" (FAQ, PPT presentations, e-mails on public lists, etc.). So it needed to be restored for v1.3. I just noticed that I hadn't opened a ticket on this -- sorry -- I opened #1383 tonight. For a variety of reasons described in the commit message r1383, Lenny and I first decided that it would be best to fix this problem by the functionality committed in r18770 (have the ability to find out where an MCA parameter was set). This would allow us to register two MCA params: mpi_paffinity_alone and opal_paffinity_alone, and generally do the Right Thing (because we could then tell if a user had set a value or whether it was a default MCA param value). This functionality will also be useful in the openib BTL, where there is a blend of MCA parameters and INI file parameters. However, after doing that, it seemed like only a few more steps to implement an overall better solution: implement "synonyms" for MCA parameters. I.e., register the name "mpi_paffinity_alone" as a synonym for opal_paffinity_alone. Along the way, it was trivial to add a "deprecated" flag for MCA parameters that we no longer want to use anymore (this deprecated flag is also useful in the OB1 PML and openib BTL). So to fix a problem that needed to be fixed for v1.3 (restore the MCA parameter "mpi_paffinity_alone"), I ended up implementing new functionality. Can this go into v1.3, or do we need to implement some kind of alternate fix? (I admit to not having thought through what it would take to fix without the new MCA parameter functionality -- it might be kinda wonky) -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ devel mailing list
Re: [OMPI devel] v1.3 RM: need a ruling
On Jul 11, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Terry Dontje wrote: Check that -- Ralph and I talked more about #1383 and have come up with a decent/better solution that a) is not wonky and b) does not involve MCA parameter synonyms. We're working on it in an hg and will put it back when done (probably within a business day or three). So I think the MCA synonym stuff *isn't* needed for v1.3 after all. I am not dead yet!!! So, there was also the name change of pls_rsh_agent to plm_rsh_agent because the pls's were sucked into plm's (or so I believe). Anyways, this seems like another case to support synonyms. Also are there other pls mca parameters that have had their names changed to plm? All of them, right? The whole pls framework is gone -- replaced by plm. There are some OB1 and openib parameters that got renamed, too (probably in other BTLs as well -- the pipeline parameters, etc.). So if we want to bring this functionality over, we can, but we should then also commit to adding deprecated synonyms for all the old names. It's not hard to do (2 function calls per deprecated name: 1) lookup the index of the new name, 2) register a deprecated synonym for that new name), but it does involve some menial labor. Ralph raises a good point -- perhaps we should have a definitive policy (that starts in v1.3) about MCA parameters. I know that Sun has examples for this stuff. Is there one that we can implement easily? -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems
Re: [OMPI devel] v1.3 RM: need a ruling
On 7/11/08 7:48 AM, "Terry Dontje" wrote: > Jeff Squyres wrote: >> Check that -- Ralph and I talked more about #1383 and have come up >> with a decent/better solution that a) is not wonky and b) does not >> involve MCA parameter synonyms. We're working on it in an hg and will >> put it back when done (probably within a business day or three). >> >> So I think the MCA synonym stuff *isn't* needed for v1.3 after all. >> > I am not dead yet!!! > > So, there was also the name change of pls_rsh_agent to plm_rsh_agent > because the pls's were sucked into plm's (or so I believe). Anyways, > this seems like another case to support synonyms. Also are there other > pls mca parameters that have had their names changed to plm? I think you're opening a really ugly can of worms. How far back do you want to go? v1.0? v0.1? We have a history of changing mca param names across major releases, so trying to keep everything alive could well become a nightmare. I would hate to try and figure out all the changes - and what about the params that simply have disappeared, or had their functionality absorbed by some combination of other params? My head aches already... :-) Ralph > > --td >> I think the MCA param synonyms and "deprecated" stuff is useful for >> the future, but at this point, nothing in v1.3 would use it. So my >> $0.02 is that we should leave it out. >> >> >> >> On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: >> >>> K, will do. Note that it turns out that we did not yet solve the >>> mpi_paffinity_alone issue, but we're working on it. I'm working on >>> the IOF issue ATM; will return to mpi_paffinity_alone in a bit... >>> >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2008, at 1:56 PM, George Bosilca wrote: >>> I'm 100% with Brad on this. Please go ahead and include this feature in the 1.3. george. On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Brad Benton wrote: > I think this is very reasonable to go ahead and include for 1.3. I > find that preferable to a 1.3-specific "wonky" workaround. Plus, > this sounds like something that is very good to have in general. > > --brad > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Jeff Squyres > wrote: > v1.3 RMs: Due to some recent work, the MCA parameter > mpi_paffinity_alone disappeared -- it was moved and renamed to be > opal_paffinity_alone. This is Bad because we have a lot of > historical precent based on the MCA param name > "mpi_paffinity_alone" (FAQ, PPT presentations, e-mails on public > lists, etc.). So it needed to be restored for v1.3. I just > noticed that I hadn't opened a ticket on this -- sorry -- I opened > #1383 tonight. > > For a variety of reasons described in the commit message r1383, > Lenny and I first decided that it would be best to fix this problem > by the functionality committed in r18770 (have the ability to find > out where an MCA parameter was set). This would allow us to > register two MCA params: mpi_paffinity_alone and > opal_paffinity_alone, and generally do the Right Thing (because we > could then tell if a user had set a value or whether it was a > default MCA param value). This functionality will also be useful > in the openib BTL, where there is a blend of MCA parameters and INI > file parameters. > > However, after doing that, it seemed like only a few more steps to > implement an overall better solution: implement "synonyms" for MCA > parameters. I.e., register the name "mpi_paffinity_alone" as a > synonym for opal_paffinity_alone. Along the way, it was trivial to > add a "deprecated" flag for MCA parameters that we no longer want > to use anymore (this deprecated flag is also useful in the OB1 PML > and openib BTL). > > So to fix a problem that needed to be fixed for v1.3 (restore the > MCA parameter "mpi_paffinity_alone"), I ended up implementing new > functionality. > > Can this go into v1.3, or do we need to implement some kind of > alternate fix? (I admit to not having thought through what it > would take to fix without the new MCA parameter functionality -- it > might be kinda wonky) > > -- > Jeff Squyres > Cisco Systems > > ___ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > ___ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Squyres >>> Cisco Systems >>> >>> ___ >>> devel mailing list >>> de...@open-mpi.org >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mail
Re: [OMPI devel] v1.3 RM: need a ruling
Jeff Squyres wrote: Check that -- Ralph and I talked more about #1383 and have come up with a decent/better solution that a) is not wonky and b) does not involve MCA parameter synonyms. We're working on it in an hg and will put it back when done (probably within a business day or three). So I think the MCA synonym stuff *isn't* needed for v1.3 after all. I am not dead yet!!! So, there was also the name change of pls_rsh_agent to plm_rsh_agent because the pls's were sucked into plm's (or so I believe). Anyways, this seems like another case to support synonyms. Also are there other pls mca parameters that have had their names changed to plm? --td I think the MCA param synonyms and "deprecated" stuff is useful for the future, but at this point, nothing in v1.3 would use it. So my $0.02 is that we should leave it out. On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: K, will do. Note that it turns out that we did not yet solve the mpi_paffinity_alone issue, but we're working on it. I'm working on the IOF issue ATM; will return to mpi_paffinity_alone in a bit... On Jul 10, 2008, at 1:56 PM, George Bosilca wrote: > I'm 100% with Brad on this. Please go ahead and include this feature > in the 1.3. > > george. > > On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Brad Benton wrote: > >> I think this is very reasonable to go ahead and include for 1.3. I >> find that preferable to a 1.3-specific "wonky" workaround. Plus, >> this sounds like something that is very good to have in general. >> >> --brad >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Jeff Squyres >> wrote: >> v1.3 RMs: Due to some recent work, the MCA parameter >> mpi_paffinity_alone disappeared -- it was moved and renamed to be >> opal_paffinity_alone. This is Bad because we have a lot of >> historical precent based on the MCA param name >> "mpi_paffinity_alone" (FAQ, PPT presentations, e-mails on public >> lists, etc.). So it needed to be restored for v1.3. I just >> noticed that I hadn't opened a ticket on this -- sorry -- I opened >> #1383 tonight. >> >> For a variety of reasons described in the commit message r1383, >> Lenny and I first decided that it would be best to fix this problem >> by the functionality committed in r18770 (have the ability to find >> out where an MCA parameter was set). This would allow us to >> register two MCA params: mpi_paffinity_alone and >> opal_paffinity_alone, and generally do the Right Thing (because we >> could then tell if a user had set a value or whether it was a >> default MCA param value). This functionality will also be useful >> in the openib BTL, where there is a blend of MCA parameters and INI >> file parameters. >> >> However, after doing that, it seemed like only a few more steps to >> implement an overall better solution: implement "synonyms" for MCA >> parameters. I.e., register the name "mpi_paffinity_alone" as a >> synonym for opal_paffinity_alone. Along the way, it was trivial to >> add a "deprecated" flag for MCA parameters that we no longer want >> to use anymore (this deprecated flag is also useful in the OB1 PML >> and openib BTL). >> >> So to fix a problem that needed to be fixed for v1.3 (restore the >> MCA parameter "mpi_paffinity_alone"), I ended up implementing new >> functionality. >> >> Can this go into v1.3, or do we need to implement some kind of >> alternate fix? (I admit to not having thought through what it >> would take to fix without the new MCA parameter functionality -- it >> might be kinda wonky) >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> Cisco Systems >> >> ___ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> >> ___ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > ___ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
Re: [OMPI devel] v1.3 RM: need a ruling
Check that -- Ralph and I talked more about #1383 and have come up with a decent/better solution that a) is not wonky and b) does not involve MCA parameter synonyms. We're working on it in an hg and will put it back when done (probably within a business day or three). So I think the MCA synonym stuff *isn't* needed for v1.3 after all. I think the MCA param synonyms and "deprecated" stuff is useful for the future, but at this point, nothing in v1.3 would use it. So my $0.02 is that we should leave it out. On Jul 10, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote: K, will do. Note that it turns out that we did not yet solve the mpi_paffinity_alone issue, but we're working on it. I'm working on the IOF issue ATM; will return to mpi_paffinity_alone in a bit... On Jul 10, 2008, at 1:56 PM, George Bosilca wrote: > I'm 100% with Brad on this. Please go ahead and include this feature > in the 1.3. > > george. > > On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Brad Benton wrote: > >> I think this is very reasonable to go ahead and include for 1.3. I >> find that preferable to a 1.3-specific "wonky" workaround. Plus, >> this sounds like something that is very good to have in general. >> >> --brad >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Jeff Squyres >> wrote: >> v1.3 RMs: Due to some recent work, the MCA parameter >> mpi_paffinity_alone disappeared -- it was moved and renamed to be >> opal_paffinity_alone. This is Bad because we have a lot of >> historical precent based on the MCA param name >> "mpi_paffinity_alone" (FAQ, PPT presentations, e-mails on public >> lists, etc.). So it needed to be restored for v1.3. I just >> noticed that I hadn't opened a ticket on this -- sorry -- I opened >> #1383 tonight. >> >> For a variety of reasons described in the commit message r1383, >> Lenny and I first decided that it would be best to fix this problem >> by the functionality committed in r18770 (have the ability to find >> out where an MCA parameter was set). This would allow us to >> register two MCA params: mpi_paffinity_alone and >> opal_paffinity_alone, and generally do the Right Thing (because we >> could then tell if a user had set a value or whether it was a >> default MCA param value). This functionality will also be useful >> in the openib BTL, where there is a blend of MCA parameters and INI >> file parameters. >> >> However, after doing that, it seemed like only a few more steps to >> implement an overall better solution: implement "synonyms" for MCA >> parameters. I.e., register the name "mpi_paffinity_alone" as a >> synonym for opal_paffinity_alone. Along the way, it was trivial to >> add a "deprecated" flag for MCA parameters that we no longer want >> to use anymore (this deprecated flag is also useful in the OB1 PML >> and openib BTL). >> >> So to fix a problem that needed to be fixed for v1.3 (restore the >> MCA parameter "mpi_paffinity_alone"), I ended up implementing new >> functionality. >> >> Can this go into v1.3, or do we need to implement some kind of >> alternate fix? (I admit to not having thought through what it >> would take to fix without the new MCA parameter functionality -- it >> might be kinda wonky) >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> Cisco Systems >> >> ___ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> >> ___ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > ___ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems
Re: [OMPI devel] v1.3 RM: need a ruling
K, will do. Note that it turns out that we did not yet solve the mpi_paffinity_alone issue, but we're working on it. I'm working on the IOF issue ATM; will return to mpi_paffinity_alone in a bit... On Jul 10, 2008, at 1:56 PM, George Bosilca wrote: I'm 100% with Brad on this. Please go ahead and include this feature in the 1.3. george. On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Brad Benton wrote: I think this is very reasonable to go ahead and include for 1.3. I find that preferable to a 1.3-specific "wonky" workaround. Plus, this sounds like something that is very good to have in general. --brad On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: v1.3 RMs: Due to some recent work, the MCA parameter mpi_paffinity_alone disappeared -- it was moved and renamed to be opal_paffinity_alone. This is Bad because we have a lot of historical precent based on the MCA param name "mpi_paffinity_alone" (FAQ, PPT presentations, e-mails on public lists, etc.). So it needed to be restored for v1.3. I just noticed that I hadn't opened a ticket on this -- sorry -- I opened #1383 tonight. For a variety of reasons described in the commit message r1383, Lenny and I first decided that it would be best to fix this problem by the functionality committed in r18770 (have the ability to find out where an MCA parameter was set). This would allow us to register two MCA params: mpi_paffinity_alone and opal_paffinity_alone, and generally do the Right Thing (because we could then tell if a user had set a value or whether it was a default MCA param value). This functionality will also be useful in the openib BTL, where there is a blend of MCA parameters and INI file parameters. However, after doing that, it seemed like only a few more steps to implement an overall better solution: implement "synonyms" for MCA parameters. I.e., register the name "mpi_paffinity_alone" as a synonym for opal_paffinity_alone. Along the way, it was trivial to add a "deprecated" flag for MCA parameters that we no longer want to use anymore (this deprecated flag is also useful in the OB1 PML and openib BTL). So to fix a problem that needed to be fixed for v1.3 (restore the MCA parameter "mpi_paffinity_alone"), I ended up implementing new functionality. Can this go into v1.3, or do we need to implement some kind of alternate fix? (I admit to not having thought through what it would take to fix without the new MCA parameter functionality -- it might be kinda wonky) -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems
Re: [OMPI devel] v1.3 RM: need a ruling
I'm 100% with Brad on this. Please go ahead and include this feature in the 1.3. george. On Jul 10, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Brad Benton wrote: I think this is very reasonable to go ahead and include for 1.3. I find that preferable to a 1.3-specific "wonky" workaround. Plus, this sounds like something that is very good to have in general. --brad On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: v1.3 RMs: Due to some recent work, the MCA parameter mpi_paffinity_alone disappeared -- it was moved and renamed to be opal_paffinity_alone. This is Bad because we have a lot of historical precent based on the MCA param name "mpi_paffinity_alone" (FAQ, PPT presentations, e-mails on public lists, etc.). So it needed to be restored for v1.3. I just noticed that I hadn't opened a ticket on this -- sorry -- I opened #1383 tonight. For a variety of reasons described in the commit message r1383, Lenny and I first decided that it would be best to fix this problem by the functionality committed in r18770 (have the ability to find out where an MCA parameter was set). This would allow us to register two MCA params: mpi_paffinity_alone and opal_paffinity_alone, and generally do the Right Thing (because we could then tell if a user had set a value or whether it was a default MCA param value). This functionality will also be useful in the openib BTL, where there is a blend of MCA parameters and INI file parameters. However, after doing that, it seemed like only a few more steps to implement an overall better solution: implement "synonyms" for MCA parameters. I.e., register the name "mpi_paffinity_alone" as a synonym for opal_paffinity_alone. Along the way, it was trivial to add a "deprecated" flag for MCA parameters that we no longer want to use anymore (this deprecated flag is also useful in the OB1 PML and openib BTL). So to fix a problem that needed to be fixed for v1.3 (restore the MCA parameter "mpi_paffinity_alone"), I ended up implementing new functionality. Can this go into v1.3, or do we need to implement some kind of alternate fix? (I admit to not having thought through what it would take to fix without the new MCA parameter functionality -- it might be kinda wonky) -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [OMPI devel] v1.3 RM: need a ruling
I think this is very reasonable to go ahead and include for 1.3. I find that preferable to a 1.3-specific "wonky" workaround. Plus, this sounds like something that is very good to have in general. --brad On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > v1.3 RMs: Due to some recent work, the MCA parameter mpi_paffinity_alone > disappeared -- it was moved and renamed to be opal_paffinity_alone. This is > Bad because we have a lot of historical precent based on the MCA param name > "mpi_paffinity_alone" (FAQ, PPT presentations, e-mails on public lists, > etc.). So it needed to be restored for v1.3. I just noticed that I hadn't > opened a ticket on this -- sorry -- I opened #1383 tonight. > > For a variety of reasons described in the commit message r1383, Lenny and I > first decided that it would be best to fix this problem by the functionality > committed in r18770 (have the ability to find out where an MCA parameter was > set). This would allow us to register two MCA params: mpi_paffinity_alone > and opal_paffinity_alone, and generally do the Right Thing (because we could > then tell if a user had set a value or whether it was a default MCA param > value). This functionality will also be useful in the openib BTL, where > there is a blend of MCA parameters and INI file parameters. > > However, after doing that, it seemed like only a few more steps to > implement an overall better solution: implement "synonyms" for MCA > parameters. I.e., register the name "mpi_paffinity_alone" as a synonym for > opal_paffinity_alone. Along the way, it was trivial to add a "deprecated" > flag for MCA parameters that we no longer want to use anymore (this > deprecated flag is also useful in the OB1 PML and openib BTL). > > So to fix a problem that needed to be fixed for v1.3 (restore the MCA > parameter "mpi_paffinity_alone"), I ended up implementing new functionality. > > Can this go into v1.3, or do we need to implement some kind of alternate > fix? (I admit to not having thought through what it would take to fix > without the new MCA parameter functionality -- it might be kinda wonky) > > -- > Jeff Squyres > Cisco Systems > > ___ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >
[OMPI devel] v1.3 RM: need a ruling
v1.3 RMs: Due to some recent work, the MCA parameter mpi_paffinity_alone disappeared -- it was moved and renamed to be opal_paffinity_alone. This is Bad because we have a lot of historical precent based on the MCA param name "mpi_paffinity_alone" (FAQ, PPT presentations, e-mails on public lists, etc.). So it needed to be restored for v1.3. I just noticed that I hadn't opened a ticket on this -- sorry -- I opened #1383 tonight. For a variety of reasons described in the commit message r1383, Lenny and I first decided that it would be best to fix this problem by the functionality committed in r18770 (have the ability to find out where an MCA parameter was set). This would allow us to register two MCA params: mpi_paffinity_alone and opal_paffinity_alone, and generally do the Right Thing (because we could then tell if a user had set a value or whether it was a default MCA param value). This functionality will also be useful in the openib BTL, where there is a blend of MCA parameters and INI file parameters. However, after doing that, it seemed like only a few more steps to implement an overall better solution: implement "synonyms" for MCA parameters. I.e., register the name "mpi_paffinity_alone" as a synonym for opal_paffinity_alone. Along the way, it was trivial to add a "deprecated" flag for MCA parameters that we no longer want to use anymore (this deprecated flag is also useful in the OB1 PML and openib BTL). So to fix a problem that needed to be fixed for v1.3 (restore the MCA parameter "mpi_paffinity_alone"), I ended up implementing new functionality. Can this go into v1.3, or do we need to implement some kind of alternate fix? (I admit to not having thought through what it would take to fix without the new MCA parameter functionality -- it might be kinda wonky) -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems
