Re: [ofa-general] Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
Steve Wise wrote: One way to alleviate this is to ship both 1.2.8 and 1.3 in ofed-1.4.1 and mark 1.3 as experimental. Then remove 1.2.8 in ofed-1.5 and make 1.3.x the production version for ofed-1.5. I suggested this in the last conf call but folks didn't like the thought of testing both. But perhaps marking it experimental resolves this issue? So the iWARP vendors will test 1.3 and little to no testing is required for 1.2.8 since it has been qualified with ofed-1.4 QA. We do not wish to have two MPI revisions in the same OFED package We talked about it several times and declined this option. Tziporet ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 16:07 -0600, Steve Wise wrote: I understand the desire to not release new features in a point release, but at the same time, these features are ready or near ready now. And prior features have definitely been released in point releases. (connectX for example). Another key point is that these features do not need the kernel rebase that will happen with ofed-1.5, which will take months... Just more thoughts. :) I'm a bit late to this discussion, and you may have already talked about this in the ewg teleconference, but I want to throw in my thoughts. As far as new features goes, adding ConnectX support in a point release is a huge difference from switching OpenMPI releases from a stable series to the .0 release of the next series. In the case of ConnectX, it was just another driver and its addition should have had almost 0 impact on anyone not using that driver. On the other hand, switching OpenMPI versions changes the OpenMPI stack for everyone and has the potential to create wide spread regressions should something go wrong. So the risk factor comparison between these two actions simply isn't valid. One doesn't risk regressions for non-ConnectX users, one risks regressions for everyone using OpenSM. Steve. Woodruff, Robert J wrote: I think that we need to discuss this in the EWG meeting. In the past I think that we have agreed to only do bug fixes in point release and not add major new features. If we do want to include the new MPI, then perhaps we should call it 1.5 and pull in the schedule for 1.5. Just a thought. woody -Original Message- From: Steve Wise [mailto:sw...@opengridcomputing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:46 PM To: John Russo Cc: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification. And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will add to justification. John Russo wrote: I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg -- Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com GPG KeyID: CFBFF194 http://people.redhat.com/dledford Infiniband specific RPMs available at http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
Doug Ledford wrote: On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 16:07 -0600, Steve Wise wrote: I understand the desire to not release new features in a point release, but at the same time, these features are ready or near ready now. And prior features have definitely been released in point releases. (connectX for example). Another key point is that these features do not need the kernel rebase that will happen with ofed-1.5, which will take months... Just more thoughts. :) I'm a bit late to this discussion, and you may have already talked about this in the ewg teleconference, but I want to throw in my thoughts. As far as new features goes, adding ConnectX support in a point release is a huge difference from switching OpenMPI releases from a stable series to the .0 release of the next series. In the case of ConnectX, it was just another driver and its addition should have had almost 0 impact on anyone not using that driver. On the other hand, switching OpenMPI versions changes the OpenMPI stack for everyone and has the potential to create wide spread regressions should something go wrong. So the risk factor comparison between these two actions simply isn't valid. One doesn't risk regressions for non-ConnectX users, one risks regressions for everyone using OpenSM. Good points. One way to alleviate this is to ship both 1.2.8 and 1.3 in ofed-1.4.1 and mark 1.3 as experimental. Then remove 1.2.8 in ofed-1.5 and make 1.3.x the production version for ofed-1.5. I suggested this in the last conf call but folks didn't like the thought of testing both. But perhaps marking it experimental resolves this issue? So the iWARP vendors will test 1.3 and little to no testing is required for 1.2.8 since it has been qualified with ofed-1.4 QA. Steve. ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 09:38 -0600, Steve Wise wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 16:07 -0600, Steve Wise wrote:
I understand the desire to not release new features in a point release,
but at the same time, these features are ready or near ready now. And
prior features have definitely been released in point releases.
(connectX for example). Another key point is that these features do not
need the kernel rebase that will happen with ofed-1.5, which will take
months...
Just more thoughts. :)
I'm a bit late to this discussion, and you may have already talked about
this in the ewg teleconference, but I want to throw in my thoughts.
As far as new features goes, adding ConnectX support in a point release
is a huge difference from switching OpenMPI releases from a stable
series to the .0 release of the next series. In the case of ConnectX,
it was just another driver and its addition should have had almost 0
impact on anyone not using that driver. On the other hand, switching
OpenMPI versions changes the OpenMPI stack for everyone and has the
potential to create wide spread regressions should something go wrong.
So the risk factor comparison between these two actions simply isn't
valid. One doesn't risk regressions for non-ConnectX users, one risks
regressions for everyone using OpenSM.
Good points.
One way to alleviate this is to ship both 1.2.8 and 1.3 in ofed-1.4.1
and mark 1.3 as experimental. Then remove 1.2.8 in ofed-1.5 and make
1.3.x the production version for ofed-1.5.
That's certainly doable IMO.
I suggested this in the last conf call but folks didn't like the thought
of testing both. But perhaps marking it experimental resolves this
issue? So the iWARP vendors will test 1.3 and little to no testing is
required for 1.2.8 since it has been qualified with ofed-1.4 QA.
What about adding some automated tests using mpitests? Both automated
build tests (which does some amount of testing of the mpicc et. al.
wrappers) and run tests (which would require a slightly more
sophisticated test harness in that it at least needs to know about
machines to run the tests over, etc)?
In fact, while I'm at it, let me attach my Makefile patch I use against
the mpitests-3.1 package in OFED 1.4. It greatly simplifies the make
environment and does something that I think the mpitests package
*should* do but currently doesn't without my patch: test the mpicc
wrappers. The current Makefiles set all sorts of MPIHOME and CC and
other variables...these are all things that mpicc *should* take care of
for you and *not* using plain mpicc in the mpitests Makefiles simply
ignores one aspect of the testing that is perfectly valid and means you
have to validate your mpi build environment separately. I would suggest
that this patch, or something like it, be applied to the build
environment for mpitests. Is the person responsible for that tarball on
these lists?
--
Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com
GPG KeyID: CFBFF194
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Infiniband specific RPMs available at
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband
--- mpitests-3.0/IMB-3.0/src/Makefile.make 2007-11-22 09:18:07.0 -0500
+++ mpitests-3.0/IMB-3.0/src/Makefile 2008-09-18 14:08:56.0 -0400
@@ -1,21 +1,9 @@
# Enter root directory of mpich install
-MPI_HOME=$(MPIHOME)
-
-MPICC=$(shell find ${MPI_HOME} -name mpicc -print)
-
-NULL_STRING :=
-ifneq (,$(findstring /bin/mpicc,${MPICC}))
-MPI_INCLUDE := -I${MPI_HOME}/include
-else
-$(error Variable MPI_HOME=${MPI_HOME} does not seem to contain a valid mpicc)
-endif
-LIB_PATH=
-LIBS=
-CC = ${MPI_HOME}/bin/mpicc
+CC = mpicc
OPTFLAGS= -O3
CLINKER = ${CC}
LDFLAGS =
CPPFLAGS=
-export MPI_INCLUDE CC LIB_PATH LIBS OPTFLAGS CLINKER LDFLAGS CPPFLAGS
+export CC OPTFLAGS CLINKER LDFLAGS CPPFLAGS
include Makefile.base
--- mpitests-3.0/IMB-3.0/src/Makefile.base.make 2007-11-22 09:18:07.0 -0500
+++ mpitests-3.0/IMB-3.0/src/Makefile.base 2008-09-18 14:08:56.0 -0400
@@ -59,6 +59,14 @@ EXT : $(OBJEXT)
IO: $(OBJIO)
$(CLINKER) $(LDFLAGS) -o IMB-IO $(OBJIO) $(LIB_PATH) $(LIBS)
+install:
+ mkdir -p ${DESTDIR}; \
+ for benchmark in IMB-MPI1 IMB-EXT IMB-IO; do \
+ if [ -e $$benchmark ]; then \
+ cp $$benchmark ${DESTDIR}${INSTALL_DIR}/mpitests-$$benchmark; \
+ fi; \
+ done
+
# Make sure that we remove executables for specific architectures
clean:
/bin/rm -f *.o *~ PI* core IMB-IO IMB-EXT IMB-MPI1 exe_io exe_ext exe_mpi1
--- mpitests-3.0/presta-1.4.0/Makefile.make 2006-08-01 04:25:21.0 -0400
+++ mpitests-3.0/presta-1.4.0/Makefile 2008-09-18 14:52:46.0 -0400
@@ -6,14 +6,7 @@
#
# Default values
-MPIHOME=
-CC=$(MPIHOME)/bin/mpicc
DISTRIB=
-STACK_PREFIX=
-LIBS= -lm -L$(MPIHOME)/lib/shared -L$(MPIHOME)/lib -L$(DISTRIB)/$(STACK_PREFIX)/lib64
Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
Woodruff, Robert J wrote: Personally I do not have a problem with including it, since MPI is an isolated component and does not effect the core stack, but I thought that we had discussed in Sonoma last year not including major new features in point releases to reduce the QA that is needed. And, in general I think that is the way that kernel.org works, point releases are just for bug fixes. In any case, lets discuss it again in the EWG on Monday. I will add this to the agenda Note that we will start working to add RH 5.3 backports now to see how much effort it is Tziporet ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
[ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
[ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification. And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will add to justification. John Russo wrote: I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
RE: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
I think that we need to discuss this in the EWG meeting. In the past I think that we have agreed to only do bug fixes in point release and not add major new features. If we do want to include the new MPI, then perhaps we should call it 1.5 and pull in the schedule for 1.5. Just a thought. woody -Original Message- From: Steve Wise [mailto:sw...@opengridcomputing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:46 PM To: John Russo Cc: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification. And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will add to justification. John Russo wrote: I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
I understand the desire to not release new features in a point release, but at the same time, these features are ready or near ready now. And prior features have definitely been released in point releases. (connectX for example). Another key point is that these features do not need the kernel rebase that will happen with ofed-1.5, which will take months... Just more thoughts. :) Steve. Woodruff, Robert J wrote: I think that we need to discuss this in the EWG meeting. In the past I think that we have agreed to only do bug fixes in point release and not add major new features. If we do want to include the new MPI, then perhaps we should call it 1.5 and pull in the schedule for 1.5. Just a thought. woody -Original Message- From: Steve Wise [mailto:sw...@opengridcomputing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:46 PM To: John Russo Cc: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification. And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will add to justification. John Russo wrote: I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
Also, FWIW, it has been discussed (and agreed, I thought) to include OMPI v1.3 in a 1.4.x release. On Jan 22, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Steve Wise wrote: I understand the desire to not release new features in a point release, but at the same time, these features are ready or near ready now. And prior features have definitely been released in point releases. (connectX for example). Another key point is that these features do not need the kernel rebase that will happen with ofed-1.5, which will take months... Just more thoughts. :) Steve. Woodruff, Robert J wrote: I think that we need to discuss this in the EWG meeting. In the past I think that we have agreed to only do bug fixes in point release and not add major new features. If we do want to include the new MPI, then perhaps we should call it 1.5 and pull in the schedule for 1.5. Just a thought. woody -Original Message- From: Steve Wise [mailto:sw...@opengridcomputing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:46 PM To: John Russo Cc: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification. And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will add to justification. John Russo wrote: I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org ] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
RE: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x
Personally I do not have a problem with including it, since MPI is an isolated component and does not effect the core stack, but I thought that we had discussed in Sonoma last year not including major new features in point releases to reduce the QA that is needed. And, in general I think that is the way that kernel.org works, point releases are just for bug fixes. In any case, lets discuss it again in the EWG on Monday. woody -Original Message- From: Jeff Squyres [mailto:jsquy...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 2:17 PM To: Steve Wise Cc: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Also, FWIW, it has been discussed (and agreed, I thought) to include OMPI v1.3 in a 1.4.x release. On Jan 22, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Steve Wise wrote: I understand the desire to not release new features in a point release, but at the same time, these features are ready or near ready now. And prior features have definitely been released in point releases. (connectX for example). Another key point is that these features do not need the kernel rebase that will happen with ofed-1.5, which will take months... Just more thoughts. :) Steve. Woodruff, Robert J wrote: I think that we need to discuss this in the EWG meeting. In the past I think that we have agreed to only do bug fixes in point release and not add major new features. If we do want to include the new MPI, then perhaps we should call it 1.5 and pull in the schedule for 1.5. Just a thought. woody -Original Message- From: Steve Wise [mailto:sw...@opengridcomputing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:46 PM To: John Russo Cc: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org; ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: Re: [ewg] RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification. And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will add to justification. John Russo wrote: I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in. Even if there are no critical PRs to fix, the introduction of RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification. I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting. Thanks -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Robert J [mailto:robert.j.woodr...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:44 PM To: John Russo; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: RE: RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what kind of bugs were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed. From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org [mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org ] On Behalf Of John Russo Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:37 PM To: gene...@lists.openfabrics.org Subject: [ofa-general] RHEL 5.3 and OFED 1.4.x Does the release of RHEL 5.3 create any additional justification for a maintenance release of OFED (1.4.1) to be generated? I am already hearing requests for an OFED release that will support it. John Russo QLogic ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ ewg mailing list ewg@lists.openfabrics.org http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ewg
