Pasha,
Thanks for the info. I updated the milestone page.
Thanks,
george.
On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Pavel Shamis (Pasha) wrote:
Brad,
APM code was committed to trunk.
So you may mark it as done.
Thanks,
Pasha.
Brad Benton wrote:
All:
The latest scrub of the 1.3 release schedule a
Sure.
-Original Message-
From: devel-boun...@open-mpi.org [mailto:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:58 PM
To: Open MPI Developers
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] PLPA ready?
Sounds perfect.
How about this -- since your and my changes are
Sounds perfect.
How about this -- since your and my changes are inter-dependent, can
you send me a patch for the paffinity change? I'll apply it at the
same time that I apply the new PLPA (later today).
Thanks!
On Feb 21, 2008, at 7:39 AM, Sharon Melamed wrote:
Yes, I think we should ch
I don't think I run into any problem building either rhc-step2b and
tmp-public/rank_file yesterday or today. But I am building with Sun
Studio 12 on Solaris 10 SPARC though.
Tim Prins wrote:
I have just made a change in r17540 which may fix your problem. If not,
please send the requested outpu
Yes, I think we should change paffinity.h and paffinity_solaris_module.c and
paffinity_windows_module.c .
I added those API's some time ago based on the plpa API's. Now, the plpa API
has changed and no one uses those API's. (Except me and in the future, maybe
Sun guys) So I don't see why not chang
I have just made a change in r17540 which may fix your problem. If not,
please send the requested output.
Tim
Tim Prins wrote:
Hi,
I have been doing some work on this branch, and may have caused that
problem. But I really cannot help at all without all the error output.
If you do a 'make >/
On Feb 21, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Right, but the plpa_solaris_module.c file will need to be updated
with
the new function signatures so that it will still compile (i.e., if
you're going to be changing the function signatures in paffinity.h).
Hah -- I meant paffinity_solaris_m
On Feb 21, 2008, at 7:01 AM, Sharon Melamed wrote:
1. Yes, I need both parameters when querying socket and cores.
2. I don't think that sun will concern if we will change the
get_processor/socket/core_info because as Pak Lui from Sun said in
one of
his early emails "I am guessing it will not m
Interesting - it is building for me, but Tim P has noted a couple of bugs (I
haven't tested it in the last few days).
I'll take a look...
On 2/21/08 8:02 AM, "Lenny Verkhovsky" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In order to make a /tmp/rank_file branch with new RMAPS component I need
> /tmp/rhc-step2b branch t
Hi,
I have been doing some work on this branch, and may have caused that
problem. But I really cannot help at all without all the error output.
If you do a 'make >/dev/null' and send that output I may be able to help.
Thanks,
Tim
Lenny Verkhovsky wrote:
Hi,
In order to make a /tmp/rank_fi
Hi,
In order to make a /tmp/rank_file branch with new RMAPS component I need
/tmp/rhc-step2b branch to be based on.
I tried to download and compile it, but it failed.
(missing many defines, h files and new directories e.t.c)
gcc -O3 -DNDEBUG -finline-functions -fno-strict-aliasing -pthread -o
Jeff,
1. Yes, I need both parameters when querying socket and cores.
2. I don't think that sun will concern if we will change the
get_processor/socket/core_info because as Pak Lui from Sun said in one of
his early emails "I am guessing it will not messing us up because these are
the functions that
On Feb 20, 2008, at 7:53 AM, Sharon Melamed wrote:
I guess I was torn between reporting num_processors/sockets and
max_socket|core_id. Really, you need both, right? It is possible
that the number of processors and/or sockets are not contiguous.
I need both *because* the number of processor is
Brad,
APM code was committed to trunk.
So you may mark it as done.
Thanks,
Pasha.
Brad Benton wrote:
All:
The latest scrub of the 1.3 release schedule and contents is ready for
review and comment. Please use the following links:
1.3 milestones:
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/mileston
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 04:08:46PM -0500, George Bosilca wrote:
> So I tracked this issue and it seems that the new behavior was
> introduced one year ago by the commit 12433. Starting from this commit,
Except that the log message of this commit says:
Fix regression from v1.1.
1) make the
15 matches
Mail list logo
