Oracle --
Is this really only specific to Solaris? More comments below about
configure.m4.
On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:37 AM, dk...@osl.iu.edu wrote:
> Author: dkerr
> Date: 2011-02-16 00:37:22 EST (Wed, 16 Feb 2011)
> New Revision: 24395
> URL: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/24395
>
Yes this is Solaris only. OFED has not bought back the IBV_ACCESS_SO
flag. Not sure they ever will.
On 02/16/11 08:15, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Oracle --
Is this really only specific to Solaris? More comments below about
configure.m4.
On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:37 AM, dk...@osl.iu.edu wrote:
Auth
On Feb 16, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Don Kerr wrote:
> Yes this is Solaris only. OFED has not bought back the IBV_ACCESS_SO flag.
> Not sure they ever will.
It should be sufficient to AC_CHECK_DECLS then -- no need for the additional
Solaris check.
--
Jeff Squyres
jsquy...@cisco.com
For corporate leg
I considered that but I wanted to guard against future OFED inclusion.
Removing the Solaris check is easy enough.
On 02/16/11 08:49, Jeff Squyres wrote:
On Feb 16, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Don Kerr wrote:
Yes this is Solaris only. OFED has not bought back the IBV_ACCESS_SO flag. Not
sure they ever
If OFED includes that constant, wouldn't we want to use it?
PCI ordering is PCI ordering (i.e., unreliable) on all hardware -- or am I
wrong?
On Feb 16, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Don Kerr wrote:
> I considered that but I wanted to guard against future OFED inclusion.
> Removing the Solaris check is ea
You would think but I did not want to speculate what OFED might do.
I'm fine skipping the Solaris check, if OFED does include things may
have to change at that point anyway.
On 02/16/11 09:41, Jeff Squyres wrote:
If OFED includes that constant, wouldn't we want to use it?
PCI ordering is PCI
We have made a minor change in OMPI's SVN configuration:
If you access the SVN repo over https, you *must* authenticate.
Previously, you could authenticate or not; SVN would serve up what was
appropriate in either case (there's one "private" tree in the SVN repo for
not-yet-published academ
I just filed CMR 2728 about this.
We should fix the README for v1.5.2 so that it can get out the door, and then
apply r22841 for v1.5.3.
On Feb 15, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Eugene Loh wrote:
> Ralph Castain wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Eugene Loh wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ralph Castain wrote:
>>
