On Jun 2, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> This RFC also got discussed on the weekly call (and in several other
> discussions). Again, no one seemed to hate it. That being said, hwloc still
> needs a bit more soak time; I just committed the 32 bit fix the other day.
We've had what
To follow up on this RFC...
This RFC also got discussed on the weekly call (and in several other
discussions). Again, no one seemed to hate it. That being said, hwloc still
needs a bit more soak time; I just committed the 32 bit fix the other day.
So this one will happen eventually (i.e.,
On May 18, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Terry Dontje wrote:
> The above sounds like you are replacing the whole paffinity framework with
> hwloc. Is that true? Or is the hwloc accessors you are talking about
> non-paffinity related?
Good point; these have all gotten muddled in the email chain. Let me
Jeff Squyres wrote:
Just chatted with Ralph about this on the phone and he came up with a slightly
better compromise...
He points out that we really don't need *all* of the hwloc API (there's a
bajillion tiny little accessor functions). We could provide a steady,
OPAL/ORTE/OMPI-specific API
endment to this rfc.
>>
>> -jms
>> Sent from my PDA. No type good.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: devel-boun...@open-mpi.org <devel-boun...@open-mpi.org>
>> To: Open MPI Developers <de...@open-mpi.org>
>> Sent: Sat May 15 09:02:2
>
> To: Open MPI Developers <de...@open-mpi.org>
> Sent: Sat May 15 09:02:28 2010
> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Remove all other paffinity components
>
> Umm...I vote "no". I still need that "test" component to use when testing
> paffinity on machines t
Sent: Sat May 15 09:02:28 2010
Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Remove all other paffinity components
Umm...I vote "no". I still need that "test" component to use when testing
paffinity on machines that don't have all the required support (e.g., Mac).
I don't have an opinion
gt; Sent: Sat May 15 09:02:28 2010
> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Remove all other paffinity components
>
> Umm...I vote "no". I still need that "test" component to use when testing
> paffinity on machines that don't have all the required support (e.g., Mac).
&g
On 14/05/10 10:20, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> That being said, we might as well leave the paffinity
> framework around, even if it only has one component left,
> simply on the argument that someday Open MPI may support
> a platform that hwloc does not.
Sounds good to me.
cheers!
Chris
--
