Re: [OMPI devel] For discussion tomorrow: MTL issues

2015-01-29 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
Thanks to all of you who joined the webex for the discussion. Short version of the results: - PSM and OFI MTL maintainers said that they will look into "promoting" themselves to be a PML. They didn't think it would be too hard (but aren't promising anything yet). - Portals MTL maintainers sai

Re: [OMPI devel] For discussion tomorrow: MTL issues

2015-01-29 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
> On Jan 29, 2015, at 8:52 AM, Friedley, Andrew > wrote: > > Is there anything written up about recent Open MPI one-sided work? Looking > for something beyond just the code that I can study up on.. papers, design > docs, future plans, etc. Doubtful. I think the main intent for the original

Re: [OMPI devel] For discussion tomorrow: MTL issues

2015-01-29 Thread Friedley, Andrew
; Squyres (jsquyres) > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:26 PM > To: Open MPI Developers List > Subject: [OMPI devel] For discussion tomorrow: MTL issues > > MTL authors -- > > We had *some* discussion of MTL issues this afternoon in the room, but > need your input (since m

[OMPI devel] For discussion tomorrow: MTL issues

2015-01-28 Thread Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)
MTL authors -- We had *some* discussion of MTL issues this afternoon in the room, but need your input (since most of you are not here). Here's what we'd like to talk about tomorrow (and we realize you might not have answers for this tomorrow). Short version: based on Mellanox's experience, why