Steve Wise wrote:
I hope you guys are documenting this in a way that makes this issue
extremely clear to both uDAPL and OFA verbs (is this the right naming?)
users. Maybe it's been done already, but is it possible to emit some
sort of loud warning/error when the accept()'ing side tries to send
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 17:55 -0700, Andrew Friedley wrote:
>
> Steve Wise wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 16:15 -0700, Andrew Friedley wrote:
> >> Steve Wise wrote:
> >>> There have been a series of discussions on the ofa general list about
> >>> this issue, and the conclusion to date is that it c
devel-boun...@open-mpi.org wrote:
> Steve Wise wrote:
>> There have been a series of discussions on the ofa general list about
>> this issue, and the conclusion to date is that it cannot be resolved
>> in the rdma-cm or iwarp-cm code of the linux rdma stack. Mainly
>> because sending an RDMA messa
Steve Wise wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 16:15 -0700, Andrew Friedley wrote:
Steve Wise wrote:
There have been a series of discussions on the ofa general list about
this issue, and the conclusion to date is that it cannot be resolved in
the rdma-cm or iwarp-cm code of the linux rdma stack. Ma
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 16:15 -0700, Andrew Friedley wrote:
>
> Steve Wise wrote:
> > There have been a series of discussions on the ofa general list about
> > this issue, and the conclusion to date is that it cannot be resolved in
> > the rdma-cm or iwarp-cm code of the linux rdma stack. Mainly be
I missing some context here. Where are you plugging iwarp and OMPI
together?
Steve Wise wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 11:42 -0400, Donald Kerr wrote:
I agree OMPI trac ticket #890 should cover this. I will test the
suggested fix, just removing that one line from btl_udapl.c, on Solaris.
I
Steve Wise wrote:
There have been a series of discussions on the ofa general list about
this issue, and the conclusion to date is that it cannot be resolved in
the rdma-cm or iwarp-cm code of the linux rdma stack. Mainly because
sending an RDMA message involves the ULP's work queue and complet
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 11:42 -0400, Donald Kerr wrote:
> I agree OMPI trac ticket #890 should cover this. I will test the
> suggested fix, just removing that one line from btl_udapl.c, on Solaris.
> I am still not set up on Linux so hopefully Steve can confirm there.
>
All,
First, I haven't tes
I agree OMPI trac ticket #890 should cover this. I will test the
suggested fix, just removing that one line from btl_udapl.c, on Solaris.
I am still not set up on Linux so hopefully Steve can confirm there.
-DON
Jeff Squyres wrote:
FWIW, I would marginally prefer if this bug is tracked in t
FWIW, I would marginally prefer if this bug is tracked in the Open
MPI trac ticket system, not the OFA bugzilla (Steve W. will have
write access there as soon as Chelsio submits their OMPI 3rd party
contribution agreement). We've traditionally [mostly] tracked OMPI
bugs in the OMPI bug sys
Although as Boris pointed out, perhaps the hack in OMPI is no longer
needed at all...
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 08:41 -0500, Steve Wise wrote:
> 606 opened to track the udapl change.
>
> 607 opened to track the ompi change to remove the port number stashing
> hack.
>
> Status: I have a patch from
606 opened to track the udapl change.
607 opened to track the ompi change to remove the port number stashing
hack.
Status: I have a patch from Arlin to test today. I will test with that
patch and with the OMPI port hack removed. Stay tuned...
Steve.
On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 15:47 -0700, Arlin
12 matches
Mail list logo
