On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Ralph Castain wrote:
If the ability to turn "on" thread support is missing from 1.5, then that is an
error.
No, it was changed from "--enable-mpi-threads" to
"--enable-opal-multi-threads" on the trunk in r22841 [1].
If the changeset has not been brought over to v1.5
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote:
Hi all,
This seems to break the trunk..
the patch attached seems to fix it..
Thanks -- I applied it to the trunk.
Abhishek
Thanks,
Mohamad
adkul...@osl.iu.edu wrote:
Author: adkulkar
Date: 2011-01-13 15:13:49 EST (Thu, 13 Jan 2011)
New Revi
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Scott Atchley wrote:
I posted a patch for this on the ticket.
Will someone be committing this to SVN?
Done. Filed the CMRs to get this moved to 1.4.3 and 1.5.
I re-opened the ticket because just posting a patch to the
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Rolf vandeVaart wrote:
I think we are almost saying the same thing. But to be sure, I will restate.
The call to opal_pointer_array_add() can return either an index (which I assume
is a positive
integer, maybe also 0?) or OPAL_ERR_OUT_OF_RESOURCE (which is a -2) if it
can
On May 14, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Josh Hursey wrote:
On May 12, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Abhishek Kulkarni wrote:
Updated RFC (w/ discussed changes):
=
=
[RFC 2/2] merge the OPAL SOS development branch into trunk
ROR == ret).
* If the error is an SOS-encoded error, ORTE_ERROR_LOG decodes
the error, prints out the error stack and frees the errors.
==
On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Abhishek Kulk
WDC branches
to the trunk. This only brings in the "notifier" changes from the SOS
branch, while the rest of the branch will be brought over after the
timeout of the second RFC.
======
On Mar 30, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Abhishek K
On Mar 29, 2010, at 9:16 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
On Mar 29, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Abhishek Kulkarni wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Sylvain Jeaugey wrote:
Hi Ralph,
For now, I think that yes, this is a unique identifier. However,
in my opinion, this could be improved in the future replacing
er id? So that would mean that ORTE/OMPI would
have to maintain a global notifier id counter to ensure it is unique?
If so, that seems really cumbersome. Could you please clarify?
Thanks
Ralph
On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Abhishek Kulkarni
seems really cumbersome. Could you please clarify?
It seems slightly cumbersome to me too. But then it saves on the
lookup cost. I am copying Nadia on this (since she's really done
all the WDC work)
Thanks,
Abhishek
Thanks
Ralph
On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Abhishek Kulk
==
[RFC 2/2]
==
WHAT: Merge the OPAL SOS development branch into the OMPI trunk.
WHY: Bring over some of the work done to enhance error reporting
capabilities
==
[RFC 1/2]
==
WHAT: Merge improvements to the "notifier" framework from the OPAL SOS
and the ORTE WDC mercurial branches into the SVN trunk.
WHY: Some i
12 matches
Mail list logo
