Re: [OMPI devel] sockaddr* vs. sockaddr_storage*
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 07:39:07AM -0700, Jeff Squyres wrote: > > (b) that > > IPv6 was correctly operating...which were the two issues in this > > discussion. > We currently do not have any IPv6 setup in our MPI testing equipment We automatically check every trunk commit against our IPv6 tests, so at least someone from Jena would notice problems. -- Cluster and Metacomputing Working Group Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany private: http://adi.thur.de
Re: [OMPI devel] sockaddr* vs. sockaddr_storage*
On May 1, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: I'm not entirely sure that the MTT testing would (a) detect whether or not multiple TCP BTL paths were working (as opposed to only one); or They should...? I'll have to check our Cisco rig to ensure that we're again testing multi-TCP BTL (we weren't for a while, but mainly due to shortcomings in our lab setup / changes in equipment). (b) that IPv6 was correctly operating...which were the two issues in this discussion. We currently do not have any IPv6 setup in our MPI testing equipment (so we're therefore not testing the IPv6 stuff); it's on the to-do list, but it hasn't happened yet... -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems
Re: [OMPI devel] sockaddr* vs. sockaddr_storage*
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 06:07:03PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote: > > I have to ask you to remove r14549 quickly as it bring back the trunk > > to the stage it was before r14544 (only random support for multiple > I'll have a look how to accomplish both: IPv6 and a reverted r14549. Does r14550 satisfies your needs? Cheerio -- Cluster and Metacomputing Working Group Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany private: http://adi.thur.de
