Hi Jeff,
Jeffrey Squyres wrote:
>
> On Apr 3, 2012, at 10:56 PM, Kawashima wrote:
>
> > I and my coworkers checked mpi-f90-interfaces.h against MPI 2.2 standard
> > and found many bugs in it. Attached patches fix them for trunk.
> > Though some of them are trivial, others are not so trivial.
> >
On Apr 3, 2012, at 10:56 PM, Kawashima wrote:
> I and my coworkers checked mpi-f90-interfaces.h against MPI 2.2 standard
> and found many bugs in it. Attached patches fix them for trunk.
> Though some of them are trivial, others are not so trivial.
> So I'll explain them below.
Excellent -- many
> In mca_btl_tcp_alloc (openmpi-trunk/ompi/mca/btl/tcp/btl_tcp.c:188) the
> first segment is initialized to point to "frag + 1".
> I don't get it... how/when is this location allocated? Isn't it just
> after the mca_btl_tcp_frag_t structure ends?
Alex,
The frag allocation macros take the fragmen
+1 on Rolf's explanation.
Additionally, note that you don't have to do it this way. You can implement
yours in whatever style you want; this is just the style we used for the TCP
BTL.
On Apr 4, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Rolf vandeVaart wrote:
> Here is my explanation. The call to MCA_BTL_TCP_FRAG_
Here is my explanation. The call to MCA_BTL_TCP_FRAG_ALLOC_EAGER or
MCA_BTL_TCP_FRAG_ALLOC_MAX allocate a chunk of memory that has space for both
the fragment as well as any payload. So, when we do the frag+1, we are setting
the pointer in the frag to point where the payload of the message liv
Hi,
As I'm working out the bugs in my component I used TCP as reference and
came across the following:
In mca_btl_tcp_alloc (openmpi-trunk/ompi/mca/btl/tcp/btl_tcp.c:188) the
first segment is initialized to point to "frag + 1".
I don't get it... how/when is this location allocated? Isn't it jus
I second Oak Ridge (or even UTK) sometime in June.
-- Josh
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
> On 4/3/12 11:08 AM, "Jeffrey Squyres" wrote:
>
>>On Apr 3, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Barrett, Brian W wrote:
>>
>>> There is discussion of attempting to have a developers meeting this
>
Mellanox is re-working the patch; the original commit violated several
abstractions. I hope they'll have a new patch soon, but I don't know the exact
timeframe.
On Apr 4, 2012, at 4:19 AM, ludovic.hab...@ext.bull.net wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I've seen that some changes have been committed f
Hi everybody,
I've seen that some changes have been committed for buffer alignment in openib.
But that changeset have been revert.
Does somebody know if/when it will be added in the trunk ?
Thanks in advance,
Ludovic
changeset: 20220:ddbb0f344524
user: miked
date: Thu Mar 29 1
