On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Rolf vandeVaart wrote:
I think I am OK with this.
Alternatively, you could have done something like is done in the TCP BTL where
the payload and header are added together for the frag size?
To state more clearly, I was trying to say you could do something similar to
what
rs
>Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] RFC: Allocate free list payload if free list isn't
>specified
>
>Opps, screwed up the title. Should be: RFC: Allocate requested free list
>payload even if an mpool isn't specified.
>
>-Nathan
>
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Nathan Hjelm
Opps, screwed up the title. Should be: RFC: Allocate requested free list
payload even if an mpool isn't specified.
-Nathan
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
What: Allocate free list payload even if a payload size is specified even if
no mpool is specified.
When: Thursday, Feb 23, 201
What: Allocate free list payload even if a payload size is specified even if no
mpool is specified.
When: Thursday, Feb 23, 2012
Why: The current behavior is to ignore the payload size if no mpool is
specified. I see no reason why a payload buffer should't be allocated in the no
mpool case. T
