OK, looks better. However the patch had a bunch of whitespace problems
(run checkpatch.pl to see them). Also:
> +static int handle_hugetlb_user_mr(struct ib_pd *pd, struct mlx4_ib_mr *mr,
> + u64 virt_addr, int access_flags)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE
>
Personally I do not have a problem with including it, since MPI is
an isolated component and does not effect the core stack,
but I thought that we had discussed in Sonoma last year
not including major new features in point releases to
reduce the QA that is needed. And, in general I think that
is th
Also, FWIW, it has been discussed (and agreed, I thought) to include
OMPI v1.3 in a 1.4.x release.
On Jan 22, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Steve Wise wrote:
I understand the desire to not release new features in a point
release, but at the same time, these features are ready or near
ready now. An
I understand the desire to not release new features in a point release,
but at the same time, these features are ready or near ready now. And
prior features have definitely been released in point releases.
(connectX for example). Another key point is that these features do not
need the ker
I think that we need to discuss this in the EWG meeting.
In the past I think that we have agreed to only do bug fixes
in point release and not add major new features.
If we do want to include the new MPI, then perhaps we should call
it 1.5 and pull in the schedule for 1.5. Just a thought.
woody
I think releasing OMPI-1.3 with iWARP support is also good justification.
And there are RDS issues with ofed-1.4 even over IB that I think will
add to justification.
John Russo wrote:
I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be factored in.
Even if there are
Good point. Thanks for bringing it up and we can discuss it
at the next EWG meeting.
woody
-Original Message-
From: John Russo [mailto:john.ru...@qlogic.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:45 PM
To: Woodruff, Robert J; gene...@lists.openfabrics.org
Cc: ewg@lists.openfabrics.org
Su
I understand but I think that this is another consideration that should be
factored in. Even if there are no "critical" PRs to fix, the introduction of
RHEL 5.3 (along with less critical PRs) may be enough justification.
I simply want to plant the seed in everyone's mind before our next meeting
In the last EWG meeting, we discussed waiting a month or so and seeing what
kind of bugs
were reported against 1.4 to determine if a 1.4.1 release was needed.
From: general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org
[mailto:general-boun...@lists.openfabrics.org] On Behalf
Since Linux may not merge adjacent pages into a single scatter entry through
calls to dma_map_sg(), we check the special case of hugetlb pages which are
likely to be mapped to coniguous dma addresses and if they are, take advantage
of this. This will result in a significantly lower number of MTT se
10 matches
Mail list logo
