I think the fix is fine as at it -- you're right; it's bad style and your macro
is clearly more robust.
Actually, we should probably wait and lump your fix into more ROMIO fixes to go
upstream -- I'm getting a *lot* of compiler warnings with this new ROMIO
version. I haven't looked into them y
Jeff Squyres wrote:
Eugene --
This ROMIO fix needs to go upstream.
Makes sense. Whom do I pester about that? Is r24356 (and now CMR 2712)
okay as is? The ROMIO change is an unimportant stylistic change, so I'm
okay cutting it loose from the other changes in the putback.
Eugene --
This ROMIO fix needs to go upstream.
On Feb 3, 2011, at 6:53 PM, eug...@osl.iu.edu wrote:
> Author: eugene
> Date: 2011-02-03 18:53:21 EST (Thu, 03 Feb 2011)
> New Revision: 24356
> URL: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/24356
>
> Log:
> Some minor changes to help the op
What IP interfaces are configured on the cluster? In particular, are there
IPoIB interfaces that are configured? If you use the dynamic connection
method but restrict either the number or type of IP interfaces to be used
via oob_tcp_if_{include,exclude}, do you still see the problem?
--brad
On
On Feb 2, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Yes, I'm really interested in this development branch even if it's
> still unstable. We are using OpenMPI + BLCR now but have a few
> portability issues since we do not have permissions to load kernel
> modules in many systems that our
