Crud - sorry about that. There was no intent to exclude - we just sometimes
forget that others who don't monitor the lists with our degree of obsession
might also want to participate.
There isn't a whole lot to report beyond what is in the thread, really. George
provided a little more
Too bad all this happened so fast otherwise ORNL would have at least
participated to the call to understand what is going to happen (since we have a
RTE module that we maintain). Any chance we could have a summary?
Thanks,
On May 1, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
Just to report back to the list: the three of us discussed this at some length,
and decided we like George's proposed solution. Looks like a good clean
approach that provides flexibility for the future. So we will introduce it when
the BTLs move down to OPAL as (a) George already has it
Done!
On May 1, 2014, at 11:22 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
> Apparently we are good today at 2PM EST. Fire-up the webex ;)
>
> George.
>
> On May 1, 2014, at 10:35 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
>
>> http://doodle.com/hhm4yyr76ipcxgk2
>>
>>
>> On
Next step:
OMPI_INSTALL_BINARIES -> OPAL_INSTALL_BINARIES
OMPI_ENSURE_CONTAINS_OPTFLAGS -> OPAL_ENSURE_CONTAINS_OPTFLAGS
OMPI_CFLAGS_BEFORE_PICKY -> OPAL_CFLAGS_BEFORE_PICKY
Most of the rest of the changes are in the config area and configure.ac - we'll
start with the following:
Apparently we are good today at 2PM EST. Fire-up the webex ;)
George.
On May 1, 2014, at 10:35 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> http://doodle.com/hhm4yyr76ipcxgk2
>
>
> On May 1, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Ralph Castain
> wrote:
>
>> sure - might be
http://doodle.com/hhm4yyr76ipcxgk2
On May 1, 2014, at 10:25 AM, Ralph Castain
wrote:
> sure - might be faster that way :-)
>
> On May 1, 2014, at 6:59 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> wrote:
>
>> Want to have a phone call/webex to discuss?
>>
>>
>> On
sure - might be faster that way :-)
On May 1, 2014, at 6:59 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> Want to have a phone call/webex to discuss?
>
>
> On May 1, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>
>> The problem we'll have with BTLs in opal is going
Want to have a phone call/webex to discuss?
On May 1, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> The problem we'll have with BTLs in opal is going to revolve around that
> ompi_process_name_t and will occur in a number of places. I've been trying to
> grok George's statement
The problem we'll have with BTLs in opal is going to revolve around that
ompi_process_name_t and will occur in a number of places. I've been trying to
grok George's statement about accessors and can't figure out a clean way to
make that work IF every RTE gets to define the process name a
On Apr 30, 2014, at 10:01 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> Why do you need the ompi_process_name_t? Isn’t the opal_identifier_t enough
> to dig for the info of the peer into the opal_db?
At the moment, I use the ompi_process_name_t for RML sends/receives in the
usnic BTL. I
A somewhat simpler solution (since we do use the jobid and vpid in various
places) might be to just define an OMPI_PROCESS_NAME_T data type in the rte.h
files for each rte, and then let opal_dstore simply store and retrieve that
type. Problem solved - except you still need to have a jobid and
12 matches
Mail list logo