On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:18:01AM -0400, George Bosilca 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. > BTL). It's not that I don't care about IPv6, it's just that I care > more about multi TCP BTL working in the way it is supposed to work. There'd be less trouble if we all had automatic testing, so nobody breaks stuff somebody else relies on. See, you have committed something that made my internal tests turn red: http://cluster.inf-ra.uni-jena.de:8010/ If I just had an URL indicating when *I* break something *you* rely on. BTW: How does multi TCP BTL works? I see num_links, but I wonder if kernel channel bonding would achieve the same results... > PS: Please read the commit log for the r14544. It explain why I > changed from sockaddr_storage* to sockaddr*. It doesn't: > Second, the IPv6 RFC suggest to use sockaddr_storage as a holder > for the IP information, but use a sockaddr* when we pass it to > functions. I don't understand the second part: "but use a sockaddr*". Why? -- Cluster and Metacomputing Working Group Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany private: http://adi.thur.de
