squyres)
>> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:22 PM
>> To: Open MPI Developers
>> Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r30860 - in
>> trunk/ompi/mca: btl/usnic rte
>>
>> Speaking of which, shouldn't the OB1 error handler send the error
:devel-boun...@open-mpi.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
>(jsquyres)
>Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:22 PM
>To: Open MPI Developers
>Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r30860 - in
>trunk/ompi/mca: btl/usnic rte
>
>Speaking of which, shouldn't the OB1 e
Speaking of which, shouldn't the OB1 error handler send the error message
string that it received as the 4th param to ompi_rte_abort() so that it can be
printed out?
Index: ompi/mca/pml/ob1/pml_ob1.c
===
---
FWIW, the following BTLs all have calls to abort() or ompi_rte_abort() within
them:
- usnic
- openib
- portals4
- the btl base itself
On Feb 27, 2014, at 7:16 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>> The majority of places we call abort in this commit is actually down in a
>> progress
On Feb 27, 2014, at 6:58 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:33 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
>
>> I’m concerned about your usage of abort here. Looking at the code I noticed
>> that you call RTE_ABORT deep inside the BTL stack.
On Feb 27, 2014, at 3:33 AM, George Bosilca wrote:
> I’m concerned about your usage of abort here. Looking at the code I noticed
> that you call RTE_ABORT deep inside the BTL stack. This is a significant
> divergence from our current behavior (except for USNIC apparently
Guys,
I’m concerned about your usage of abort here. Looking at the code I noticed
that you call RTE_ABORT deep inside the BTL stack. This is a significant
divergence from our current behavior (except for USNIC apparently as the code
is now in the 1.7). The BTLs are not deciders, but merely