[ofiwg] Coverity Scan: Analysis completed for ofiwg/libfabric

[scan-admin--- via ofiwg]

Your request for analysis of ofiwg/libfabric has been completed 
successfully.
The results are available at 
https://u15810271.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=HRESupC-2F2Czv4BOaCWWCy7my0P0qcxCbhZ31OYv50yp0yUbWtF-2B8FwvGLTJMQ0Z05keiFeXlm0OSBQeh-2BoKgvg-3D-3DsNNc_f9IYZ6Ow1q3vrD6KuvrIXH7YVWc8OOsB9tDVxIyTSCrPZvpGy8f6i2mR43IHorzwvEvSVZLN5AWuAMFwMhomlQDkSwK85NCzmDGDKWiARqmJlwX4pfl-2FazHYepYo-2BQZIeSAyYkuO-2B-2F9KfTRW6MEdoSIU2hHn57Yq3Ltxj4AcaGBwqYekzlypwuy6-2FazSS9BIABHunNBeF2ayEwZ1s-2ByXcFTy9r09YX2c06iHu4XJUOE-3D

Build ID: 592942

Analysis Summary:
   New defects found: 0
   Defects eliminated: 0

___
ofiwg mailing list
ofiwg@lists.openfabrics.org
https://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/ofiwg

Re: [ofiwg] libfabric 2.0 and FABRIC_DIRECT

[Xiong, Jianxin]

FABRIC_DIRECT is a building option that providers can choose to support or not. 
Providers are free to remove the support at any time. Middlewares are not 
required to test against fabric direct build. If they do, it is usually only 
done with the provider(s) in interest that support fabric direct. Even with all 
current providers removing fabric direct support, leaving the option available 
may be useful for future providers and doesn't incur any measurable maintenance 
cost by itself.

From: Blocksome, Michael 
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 1:19 PM
To: ofiwg@lists.openfabrics.org; Xiong, Jianxin 
Subject: libfabric 2.0 and FABRIC_DIRECT

Hello all .. apologies, but I missed today's ofiwg call.

I understand that FABRIC_DIRECT w.r.t. libfabric 2.0 was discussed and it was 
determined that FABRIC_DIRECT would not be removed in the future.  @Xiong, 
Jianxin - could you summarize the rationale for 
this decision for me?

In the current "version2" PR (https://github.com/ofiwg/libfabric/pull/9384) the 
only providers that support FABRIC_DIRECT are opx, psm2, psm3 and tcp - however 
opx will drop support, and the psm2 provider could be removed entirely (TBD).  
The tcp provider is not optimized for latency (it is curious that it supports 
FABRIC_DIRECT at all). That leaves psm3 as the only provider that supports this 
feature. Does psm3 really need it? If not, then removing it would greatly 
simplify testing and maintenance costs - not just for ofiwg and the psm3 
provider, but also for all middleware, etc.

Thanks!
Mike
External recipient
___
ofiwg mailing list
ofiwg@lists.openfabrics.org
https://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/ofiwg

[ofiwg] libfabric 2.0 and FABRIC_DIRECT

[Blocksome, Michael]

Hello all .. apologies, but I missed today's ofiwg call.

I understand that FABRIC_DIRECT w.r.t. libfabric 2.0 was discussed and it was 
determined that FABRIC_DIRECT would not be removed in the future.  @Xiong, 
Jianxin - could you summarize the rationale for 
this decision for me?

In the current "version2" PR (https://github.com/ofiwg/libfabric/pull/9384) the 
only providers that support FABRIC_DIRECT are opx, psm2, psm3 and tcp - however 
opx will drop support, and the psm2 provider could be removed entirely (TBD).  
The tcp provider is not optimized for latency (it is curious that it supports 
FABRIC_DIRECT at all). That leaves psm3 as the only provider that supports this 
feature. Does psm3 really need it? If not, then removing it would greatly 
simplify testing and maintenance costs - not just for ofiwg and the psm3 
provider, but also for all middleware, etc.

Thanks!
Mike
External recipient
___
ofiwg mailing list
ofiwg@lists.openfabrics.org
https://lists.openfabrics.org/mailman/listinfo/ofiwg