On Jul 12, 2010, at 7:07 PM, Jirka Hladky wrote:
> > |Index: tests/embedded/Makefile.am
> > |===
> > |--- tests/embedded/Makefile.am (.../tags/hwloc-1.0.1) (revision 2305)
> > |+++ tests/embedded/Makefile.am (.../branches/v1.0) (
Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success.
Snapshot: hwloc 1.0.2a1r2313
Start time: Tue Jul 13 19:40:34 EDT 2010
End time: Tue Jul 13 19:42:25 EDT 2010
Your friendly daemon,
Cyrador
Creating nightly hwloc snapshot SVN tarball was a success.
Snapshot: hwloc 1.1a1r2312
Start time: Tue Jul 13 19:38:36 EDT 2010
End time: Tue Jul 13 19:40:34 EDT 2010
Your friendly daemon,
Cyrador
ERROR: Command returned a non-zero exist status (v1.0):
svn co http://svn.open-mpi.org/svn/hwloc//branches/v1.0 -r hwloc
Start time: Tue Jul 13 19:37:20 EDT 2010
End time: Tue Jul 13 19:37:20 EDT 2010
===
svn: Syntax e
ERROR: Command returned a non-zero exist status (trunk):
svn co http://svn.open-mpi.org/svn/hwloc//trunk -r 2312 hwloc
Start time: Tue Jul 13 19:37:15 EDT 2010
End time: Tue Jul 13 19:37:20 EDT 2010
===
[... previous li
On Jul 13, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Dave Goodell wrote:
> > How are we doing ABI-wise? (sorry I haven't paid enough attention) Will
> > the next Libtool ABI version be 0:2:1?
>
> Wouldn't that be a nonsensical libtool ABI version string? I read that as
> saying:
>
> "This library exposes interfac
On Jul 13, 2010, at 9:44 AM CDT, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> How are we doing ABI-wise? (sorry I haven't paid enough attention) Will the
> next Libtool ABI version be 0:2:1?
Wouldn't that be a nonsensical libtool ABI version string? I read that as
saying:
"This library exposes interface version 0
On Jul 13, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Yes, I vote for 1.0.2 very soon. And I will help Jirka for RPM package.
Cool. Let me know when you want an RC; I can build one pretty easily/quickly.
> > How are we doing ABI-wise? (sorry I haven't paid enough attention) Will
> > the next L
Le 13/07/2010 16:44, Jeff Squyres a écrit :
> I see lots of changes on the 1.0 branch. Do we want to have a 1.0.2 release
> in the near future?
>
Yes, I vote for 1.0.2 very soon. And I will help Jirka for RPM package.
> How are we doing ABI-wise? (sorry I haven't paid enough attention) Wil
I see lots of changes on the 1.0 branch. Do we want to have a 1.0.2 release in
the near future?
How are we doing ABI-wise? (sorry I haven't paid enough attention) Will the
next Libtool ABI version be 0:2:1?
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/libtool.html#Updating-version-info
--
Je
Le 13/07/2010 12:04, Brice Goglin a écrit :
> Le 13/07/2010 11:56, Bernd Kallies a écrit :
>
>> Thanks for the quick reply.
>>
>> I expect that one can safely use the tree-traversing functions of the
>> hwloc API with a topology, that is returned by hwloc_topology_load. When
>> they crash, then
Le 13/07/2010 11:56, Bernd Kallies a écrit :
> Thanks for the quick reply.
>
> I expect that one can safely use the tree-traversing functions of the
> hwloc API with a topology, that is returned by hwloc_topology_load. When
> they crash, then the topology is broken. This should not happen.
>
Su
Thanks for the quick reply.
I expect that one can safely use the tree-traversing functions of the
hwloc API with a topology, that is returned by hwloc_topology_load. When
they crash, then the topology is broken. This should not happen.
One has to walk through the topology tree e.g. when trying to
Le 13/07/2010 11:22, Bernd Kallies a écrit :
>> /bin/echo 0-4 > /dev/cpuset/mycpuset/cpus
>> /bin/echo 0-1 > /dev/cpuset/mycpuset/mems
>> /bin/echo $$ > /dev/cpuset/mycpuset/tasks
>> /sw/local/packages/hwloc-1.0.1/bin/lstopo
>>
> Machine (142GB)
> NUMANode #0 (phys=0 71GB) + Socket #0 + L3
I'd like to report the following bug with hwloc-1.0.1:
When creating a Linux cpuset (see cpuset(7)) with a subset of resources
of the current machine, and binding a hwloc application to this cpuset,
then the hwloc API may return a broken topology when restricting the
topology to objects that have
15 matches
Mail list logo
