2008/5/20 Richard Graham :
> Brad,
> Do you want these for bug fixes too ?
>
I think that it's okay to check in small bug fixes without a ticket. I know
this is a somewhat nebulous guideline, but I'm thinking bug fixes of a few
lines as being "small". So, unless George has an objection, I'm
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 03:44:41PM -0400, Pak Lui wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> This is CentOS 4.6 on Ranger. Sorry I didn't mention it. So what should
> I do?
>
> login3% more /etc/*release*
> ::
> /etc/redhat-release
> ::
> CentOS release 4.6 (Final)
> ::
> /etc/rocks
Brad,
Do you want these for bug fixes too ?
Rich
On 5/20/08 5:53 PM, "Brad Benton" wrote:
> All:
>
> In order to better track changes on the trunk until we branch for 1.3, we (the
> release managers) would like to ask that all trunk checkins have corresponding
> tickets associated with them
All:
In order to better track changes on the trunk until we branch for 1.3, we
(the release managers) would like to ask that all trunk checkins have
corresponding tickets associated with them. This will help us to keep
better track of the state of the trunk prior to branching. Note, this is
just
There's definitely two problems in the _iwarp.c file -- see:
https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/1294
On May 20, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Pak Lui wrote:
Hi Jon,
This is CentOS 4.6 on Ranger. Sorry I didn't mention it. So what
should
I do?
login3% more /etc/*release*
::
/et
Hi Jon,
This is CentOS 4.6 on Ranger. Sorry I didn't mention it. So what should
I do?
login3% more /etc/*release*
::
/etc/redhat-release
::
CentOS release 4.6 (Final)
::
/etc/rocks-release
::
Rocks release 4.2.1 (Cydonia)
login3%
Jon Mason wrot
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 02:48:49PM -0400, Pak Lui wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not familiar with get_iwarp_subnet_id and I am not sure why it is
> causing trunk to barf. I think I am using ofed 1.2.5. See attached for
That is in the 1.3 tree, not 1.2. There was a bug in Solaris that was
fixed recent
Hi,
I am not familiar with get_iwarp_subnet_id and I am not sure why it is
causing trunk to barf. I think I am using ofed 1.2.5. See attached for
config.log.
10439 libtool: link: pgCC -O -DNDEBUG -o .libs/ompi_info components.o
ompi_info.o output.o param.o version.o ../../../ompi/.libs/li
Ok, I think we're mostly converged on a solution. This might not get
implemented immediately (got some other pending v1.3 stuff to bug fix,
etc.), but it'll happen for v1.3.
- endpoint creation will mpool alloc/register a small buffer for
handshake
- cpc does not need to call _post_recvs()
Is it possible to have sane SRQ implementation without HW flow
control?
It seems pretty unlikely if the only available HW flow control is to
terminate the connection. ;-)
Even if we can get the iWARP semantics to work, this feels kinda
icky. Perhaps I'm overreacting and this is
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 01:38:53PM -0400, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> >> 5. ...?
> > What about moving posting of receive buffers into main thread. With
> > SRQ it is easy: don't post anything in CPC thread. Main thread will
> > prepost buffers automatically after first fragment received on the
> > endpo
11 matches
Mail list logo
