Re: [OMPI devel] [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r25234
It seems like this should be a field in ompi_info output, too... Maybe a component can effect a "license" m4 variable, or somesuch...? On Oct 5, 2011, at 1:14 PM, hje...@osl.iu.edu wrote: > Author: hjelmn > Date: 2011-10-05 13:14:24 EDT (Wed, 05 Oct 2011) > New Revision: 25234 > URL: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/25234 > > Log: > first cut at general pmi check > Added: > trunk/orte/config/orte_check_pmi.m4 > > Added: trunk/orte/config/orte_check_pmi.m4 > == > --- (empty file) > +++ trunk/orte/config/orte_check_pmi.m4 2011-10-05 13:14:24 EDT (Wed, > 05 Oct 2011) > @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ > +# -*- shell-script -*- > +# > +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 The Trustees of Indiana University and Indiana > +# University Research and Technology > +# Corporation. All rights reserved. > +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 The University of Tennessee and The University > +# of Tennessee Research Foundation. All rights > +# reserved. > +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart, > +# University of Stuttgart. All rights reserved. > +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 The Regents of the University of California. > +# All rights reserved. > +# Copyright (c) 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. > +# Copyright (c) 2011 Los Alamos National Security, LLC. All rights > +# reserved. > +# $COPYRIGHT$ > +# > +# Additional copyrights may follow > +# > +# $HEADER$ > +# > + > +# ORTE_CHECK_PMI(prefix, [action-if-found], [action-if-not-found]) > +# > +AC_DEFUN([ORTE_CHECK_PMI],[ > + AC_ARG_WITH([pmi], > +[AC_HELP_STRING([--with-pmi], > +[Build PMI support (default: no)])], > + [], with_pmi=no) > + orte_enable_pmi=0 > + > + AC_MSG_CHECKING([if user requested PMI support]) > + AS_IF([test "$with_pmi" = "no"], [ > + AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) > + orte_want_pmi_support=no],[ > + AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) > + AS_IF([test ! -z "$with_pmi" -a "$with_pmi" != "yes"],[ > + AS_IF([test -d "$with_pmi/lib64"], LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS > -L$with_pmi/lib64", > + LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -L$with_pmi/lib") > + CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -I$with_pmi/include"],[]) > + > + orte_want_pmi_support=yes > + orte_have_pmi_support=no > + AC_MSG_CHECKING([if PMI support installed]) > + AC_CHECK_HEADERS([pmi.h > slurm/pmi.h],[orte_have_pmi_support=yes] [break],[],[AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT]) > + AC_CHECK_LIB([pmi],[PMI_Init],[],orte_have_pmi_support=no) > + AS_IF([test "$orte_have_pmi_support" = "yes"], [ > + AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) > + AC_MSG_WARN([PMI SUPPORT HAS BEEN INCLUDED - RESULTING]) > + AC_MSG_WARN([BINARIES ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL > LICENSING]) > + AC_MSG_WARN([RESTRICTIONS - SEE THE SLURM LICENSE FOR > INFO]) > + orte_enable_pmi=1] [$2],[ > + AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) > + AC_MSG_WARN([PMI support requested (via --with-pmi) but > not found.]) > + AC_MSG_ERROR([Aborting.])] [$3])]) > + AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED([WANT_PMI_SUPPORT], > + [$orte_enable_pmi], > + [Whether we want PMI support]) > +]) > ___ > svn-full mailing list > svn-f...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/svn-full -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
Re: [OMPI devel] [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r25234
I don't think we need to go that far; in fact, we really shouldn't use m4 macros to enforce license policies like that. But more importantly, we should remove that particular warning from this test, since the test is used in places other than SLURM, which don't have negative licensing impact. Brian On 10/5/11 11:25 AM, "Jeff Squyres" wrote: >It seems like this should be a field in ompi_info output, too... > >Maybe a component can effect a "license" m4 variable, or somesuch...? > > >On Oct 5, 2011, at 1:14 PM, hje...@osl.iu.edu wrote: > >> Author: hjelmn >> Date: 2011-10-05 13:14:24 EDT (Wed, 05 Oct 2011) >> New Revision: 25234 >> URL: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/25234 >> >> Log: >> first cut at general pmi check >> Added: >> trunk/orte/config/orte_check_pmi.m4 >> >> Added: trunk/orte/config/orte_check_pmi.m4 >> >>= >>= >> --- (empty file) >> +++ trunk/orte/config/orte_check_pmi.m42011-10-05 13:14:24 EDT >>(Wed, 05 Oct 2011) >> @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ >> +# -*- shell-script -*- >> +# >> +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 The Trustees of Indiana University and >>Indiana >> +# University Research and Technology >> +# Corporation. All rights reserved. >> +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 The University of Tennessee and The >>University >> +# of Tennessee Research Foundation. All rights >> +# reserved. >> +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart, >> +# University of Stuttgart. All rights >>reserved. >> +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 The Regents of the University of California. >> +# All rights reserved. >> +# Copyright (c) 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. >> +# Copyright (c) 2011 Los Alamos National Security, LLC. All rights >> +# reserved. >> +# $COPYRIGHT$ >> +# >> +# Additional copyrights may follow >> +# >> +# $HEADER$ >> +# >> + >> +# ORTE_CHECK_PMI(prefix, [action-if-found], [action-if-not-found]) >> +# >> +AC_DEFUN([ORTE_CHECK_PMI],[ >> +AC_ARG_WITH([pmi], >> +[AC_HELP_STRING([--with-pmi], >> +[Build PMI support (default: no)])], >> +[], with_pmi=no) >> +orte_enable_pmi=0 >> + >> +AC_MSG_CHECKING([if user requested PMI support]) >> +AS_IF([test "$with_pmi" = "no"], [ >> +AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) >> +orte_want_pmi_support=no],[ >> +AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) >> +AS_IF([test ! -z "$with_pmi" -a "$with_pmi" != "yes"],[ >> +AS_IF([test -d "$with_pmi/lib64"], LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS >>-L$with_pmi/lib64", >> +LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -L$with_pmi/lib") >> +CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -I$with_pmi/include"],[]) >> + >> +orte_want_pmi_support=yes >> +orte_have_pmi_support=no >> +AC_MSG_CHECKING([if PMI support installed]) >> +AC_CHECK_HEADERS([pmi.h >>slurm/pmi.h],[orte_have_pmi_support=yes] >>[break],[],[AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT]) >> +AC_CHECK_LIB([pmi],[PMI_Init],[],orte_have_pmi_support=no) >> +AS_IF([test "$orte_have_pmi_support" = "yes"], [ >> +AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) >> +AC_MSG_WARN([PMI SUPPORT HAS BEEN INCLUDED - RESULTING]) >> +AC_MSG_WARN([BINARIES ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL LICENSING]) >> +AC_MSG_WARN([RESTRICTIONS - SEE THE SLURM LICENSE FOR >>INFO]) >> +orte_enable_pmi=1] [$2],[ >> +AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) >> +AC_MSG_WARN([PMI support requested (via --with-pmi) but >>not found.]) >> +AC_MSG_ERROR([Aborting.])] [$3])]) >> + AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED([WANT_PMI_SUPPORT], >> + [$orte_enable_pmi], >> + [Whether we want PMI support]) >> +]) >> ___ >> svn-full mailing list >> svn-f...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/svn-full > > >-- >Jeff Squyres >jsquy...@cisco.com >For corporate legal information go to: >http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > >___ >devel mailing list >de...@open-mpi.org >http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories
Re: [OMPI devel] [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r25234
On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote: > I don't think we need to go that far; in fact, we really shouldn't use m4 > macros to enforce license policies like that. I'm not talking about enforcement -- I'm talking about notification. > But more importantly, we should remove that particular warning from this > test, since the test is used in places other than SLURM, which don't have > negative licensing impact. Fair enough; is there a way to tell the difference between BSD-friendly PMI and not-BSD-friendly PMI? > Brian > > On 10/5/11 11:25 AM, "Jeff Squyres" wrote: > >> It seems like this should be a field in ompi_info output, too... >> >> Maybe a component can effect a "license" m4 variable, or somesuch...? >> >> >> On Oct 5, 2011, at 1:14 PM, hje...@osl.iu.edu wrote: >> >>> Author: hjelmn >>> Date: 2011-10-05 13:14:24 EDT (Wed, 05 Oct 2011) >>> New Revision: 25234 >>> URL: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/25234 >>> >>> Log: >>> first cut at general pmi check >>> Added: >>> trunk/orte/config/orte_check_pmi.m4 >>> >>> Added: trunk/orte/config/orte_check_pmi.m4 >>> >>> = >>> = >>> --- (empty file) >>> +++ trunk/orte/config/orte_check_pmi.m42011-10-05 13:14:24 EDT >>> (Wed, 05 Oct 2011) >>> @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ >>> +# -*- shell-script -*- >>> +# >>> +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 The Trustees of Indiana University and >>> Indiana >>> +# University Research and Technology >>> +# Corporation. All rights reserved. >>> +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 The University of Tennessee and The >>> University >>> +# of Tennessee Research Foundation. All rights >>> +# reserved. >>> +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 High Performance Computing Center Stuttgart, >>> +# University of Stuttgart. All rights >>> reserved. >>> +# Copyright (c) 2004-2005 The Regents of the University of California. >>> +# All rights reserved. >>> +# Copyright (c) 2009 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. >>> +# Copyright (c) 2011 Los Alamos National Security, LLC. All rights >>> +# reserved. >>> +# $COPYRIGHT$ >>> +# >>> +# Additional copyrights may follow >>> +# >>> +# $HEADER$ >>> +# >>> + >>> +# ORTE_CHECK_PMI(prefix, [action-if-found], [action-if-not-found]) >>> +# >>> +AC_DEFUN([ORTE_CHECK_PMI],[ >>> +AC_ARG_WITH([pmi], >>> +[AC_HELP_STRING([--with-pmi], >>> +[Build PMI support (default: no)])], >>> +[], with_pmi=no) >>> +orte_enable_pmi=0 >>> + >>> +AC_MSG_CHECKING([if user requested PMI support]) >>> +AS_IF([test "$with_pmi" = "no"], [ >>> +AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) >>> +orte_want_pmi_support=no],[ >>> +AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) >>> +AS_IF([test ! -z "$with_pmi" -a "$with_pmi" != "yes"],[ >>> +AS_IF([test -d "$with_pmi/lib64"], LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS >>> -L$with_pmi/lib64", >>> +LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -L$with_pmi/lib") >>> +CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -I$with_pmi/include"],[]) >>> + >>> +orte_want_pmi_support=yes >>> +orte_have_pmi_support=no >>> +AC_MSG_CHECKING([if PMI support installed]) >>> +AC_CHECK_HEADERS([pmi.h >>> slurm/pmi.h],[orte_have_pmi_support=yes] >>> [break],[],[AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT]) >>> +AC_CHECK_LIB([pmi],[PMI_Init],[],orte_have_pmi_support=no) >>> +AS_IF([test "$orte_have_pmi_support" = "yes"], [ >>> +AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) >>> +AC_MSG_WARN([PMI SUPPORT HAS BEEN INCLUDED - RESULTING]) >>> +AC_MSG_WARN([BINARIES ARE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL LICENSING]) >>> +AC_MSG_WARN([RESTRICTIONS - SEE THE SLURM LICENSE FOR >>> INFO]) >>> +orte_enable_pmi=1] [$2],[ >>> +AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) >>> +AC_MSG_WARN([PMI support requested (via --with-pmi) but >>> not found.]) >>> +AC_MSG_ERROR([Aborting.])] [$3])]) >>> + AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED([WANT_PMI_SUPPORT], >>> + [$orte_enable_pmi], >>> + [Whether we want PMI support]) >>> +]) >>> ___ >>> svn-full mailing list >>> svn-f...@open-mpi.org >>> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/svn-full >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquy...@cisco.com >> For corporate legal information go to: >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> >> >> ___ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel >> >> > > > -- > Brian W. Barrett > Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software > Sandia National Laboratories > > > > > > > ___ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org
Re: [OMPI devel] [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r25234
On 10/5/11 12:37 PM, "Jeff Squyres" wrote: >On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote: > >> I don't think we need to go that far; in fact, we really shouldn't use >>m4 >> macros to enforce license policies like that. > >I'm not talking about enforcement -- I'm talking about notification. That's what I meant by policies. Configure.m4 is the wrong place to set things like licensing information; if you want ompi_info to know something about a license, make it part of the component struct. >> But more importantly, we should remove that particular warning from this >> test, since the test is used in places other than SLURM, which don't >>have >> negative licensing impact. > >Fair enough; is there a way to tell the difference between BSD-friendly >PMI and not-BSD-friendly PMI? Not directly, no. It's likely that the ess will need to be PMI + something for many cases, so perhaps those configure macros can check. Perhaps not. Kind of sucks, but what can you do? Brian -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories
Re: [OMPI devel] [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r25234
I thought I already had a check pmi m4 somewhere? Should have been in that pmi component I committed a few months ago. I can check next week. I agree with Brian - can't really be checked, and there are non-slurm pmi's out there. Ralph Sent from my iPad On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:40 AM, "Barrett, Brian W" wrote: > On 10/5/11 12:37 PM, "Jeff Squyres" wrote: > >> On Oct 5, 2011, at 2:30 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote: >> >>> I don't think we need to go that far; in fact, we really shouldn't use >>> m4 >>> macros to enforce license policies like that. >> >> I'm not talking about enforcement -- I'm talking about notification. > > That's what I meant by policies. Configure.m4 is the wrong place to set > things like licensing information; if you want ompi_info to know something > about a license, make it part of the component struct. > >>> But more importantly, we should remove that particular warning from this >>> test, since the test is used in places other than SLURM, which don't >>> have >>> negative licensing impact. >> >> Fair enough; is there a way to tell the difference between BSD-friendly >> PMI and not-BSD-friendly PMI? > > Not directly, no. It's likely that the ess will need to be PMI + > something for many cases, so perhaps those configure macros can check. > Perhaps not. Kind of sucks, but what can you do? > > Brian > > -- > Brian W. Barrett > Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software > Sandia National Laboratories > > > > > > ___ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
Re: [OMPI devel] [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r25234
On 10/5/11 2:22 PM, "Ralph Castain" wrote: >I thought I already had a check pmi m4 somewhere? Should have been in >that pmi component I committed a few months ago. I can check next week. You did :). LANL's moving some code around so that we can extend the ALPS ess to use PMI instead of cnos to support direct launch on our new XE machine, so we (LANL and SNL) are refactoring some of the code. Brian -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories
Re: [OMPI devel] [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r25234
On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Barrett, Brian W wrote: On 10/5/11 2:22 PM, "Ralph Castain" wrote: I thought I already had a check pmi m4 somewhere? Should have been in that pmi component I committed a few months ago. I can check next week. You did :). LANL's moving some code around so that we can extend the ALPS ess to use PMI instead of cnos to support direct launch on our new XE machine, so we (LANL and SNL) are refactoring some of the code. Should I update the slurm and grpcomm/pmi checks or will you handle that? Also, FYI. Removed the license warning. -Nathan
Re: [OMPI devel] [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r25234
Please go ahead! I'm happy to help get it all working when I return from vacation, assuming it isn't already done. :-) Sent from my iPad On Oct 5, 2011, at 1:39 PM, Nathan Hjelm wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2011, Barrett, Brian W wrote: > >> On 10/5/11 2:22 PM, "Ralph Castain" wrote: >> >>> I thought I already had a check pmi m4 somewhere? Should have been in >>> that pmi component I committed a few months ago. I can check next week. >> >> You did :). LANL's moving some code around so that we can extend the ALPS >> ess to use PMI instead of cnos to support direct launch on our new XE >> machine, so we (LANL and SNL) are refactoring some of the code. > > Should I update the slurm and grpcomm/pmi checks or will you handle that? > > > > Also, FYI. Removed the license warning. > > -Nathan > ___ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
