On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:08:51PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:38:21AM -0600, Galen Shipman wrote:
> > Hi Gleb,
> >
> > As we have discussed before I am working on adding support for
> > multiple QPs with either per peer resources or shared resources.
> > As a result
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 10:01:20PM -0400, Patrick Geoffray wrote:
> Jeff Squyres wrote:
> > Let's take a step back and see exactly what we *want*. Then we can
> > talk about how to have an interface for it.
>
> I must be missing something but why is the bandwidth/latency passed by
> the user
Yoinks -- I got my deadlines mixed up and accidentally committed the
btl_openib_if_[in|ex]clude stuff to the trunk a day early (i.e., last
night instead of tonight). Sorry about that, everyone...
If anyone still wants more time to evaluate this stuff, let me know
and I'll back it out.
On Jun 14, 2007, at 6:32 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
794:mca_btl_openib_endpoint_recv] can't find suitable endpoint for
this peer
Now I see that my fix was in the right place, but still a little bit
wrong. I committed a fix to my fix in r15073. Can you check it?
My cluster is still running MTT
On Jun 14, 2007, at 7:11 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Now I see that my fix was in the right place, but still a little bit
wrong. I committed a fix to my fix in r15073. Can you check it?
My cluster is still running MTT from last night; I'll need to wait
for several jobs to finish. I'll check it
The patch applies to ib_multifrag as is without a conflict. But the
branch
doesn't compile with or without the patch so I was not able to test
it.
Do you have some uncommitted changes that may generate a conflict? Can
you commit them so they can be resolved? If there is no conflict
