On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Edgar Gabriel wrote:
> you are right. At first I thought that the loop above that should catch that
> condition but it doesn't. I will apply your patch and file a CMR for the 1.3
> branch...
>
> Thanks for the bug report and the fix right away...
> Edgar
Thanks for
you are right. At first I thought that the loop above that should catch
that condition but it doesn't. I will apply your patch and file a CMR
for the 1.3 branch...
Thanks for the bug report and the fix right away...
Edgar
Geoffrey Irving wrote:
Hello,
MPI_Group_compare is broken in both 1.3.
Hello,
MPI_Group_compare is broken in both 1.3.2 and svn. Here is a patch
which fixes the problem:
diff --git a/ompi/mpi/c/group_compare.c b/ompi/mpi/c/group_compare.c
index 0d199c1..89c83f9 100644
--- a/ompi/mpi/c/group_compare.c
+++ b/ompi/mpi/c/group_compare.c
@@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ int MPI_Grou
FWIW: Jeff and I chatted about this on the phone and came up with two
issues that need resolving:
1. we use mpi_paffinity_alone to indicate that we should bind
processes, yet the orteds have no way of seeing that MCA param as it
is registered and evaluated in the MPI layer. We propose to re
I can do the coding - just want to ensure interested others get their
$0.002 in on how it should work.
I came up with a way to do it that doesn't require changes to the
paffinity framework. I can complete the prototype next week on an hg
branch and let you look at it. Mostly consists of mov
Brian W. Barrett wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Ralph Castain wrote:
Any thoughts on this? Should we change it?
Yes, we should change this (IMHO) :).
Me too.
If so, who wants to be involved in the re-design? I'm pretty sure it
would require some modification of the paffinity framework, plus so
Done: http://www.open-mpi.org/papers/trinity-btl-2009/
Thanks!
On May 6, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Timothy Hayes wrote:
Would this be okay?
@misc{hayes09_ugrad_xenmpi,
author = {Timothy Hayes},
title = {An Effcient Open MPI Transport System for Virtual Worker
Nodes},
howpublished = {Trinit
