On 15:51 Mon 23 Oct , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
>
> Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> > On 09:02 Mon 23 Oct , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
> >> Hi Sasha.
> >>
> >> The removal of the sm->p_report_buf is a good idea.
> >> However, I do have one comment:
> >> In several cases this buffer was printed usi
Sasha Khapyorsky wrote:
> On 09:02 Mon 23 Oct , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
>> Hi Sasha.
>>
>> The removal of the sm->p_report_buf is a good idea.
>> However, I do have one comment:
>> In several cases this buffer was printed using the osm_log_raw()
>> function, and you replaced this with a pla
On 09:02 Mon 23 Oct , Yevgeny Kliteynik wrote:
> Hi Sasha.
>
> The removal of the sm->p_report_buf is a good idea.
> However, I do have one comment:
> In several cases this buffer was printed using the osm_log_raw()
> function, and you replaced this with a plain fprintf(stdout,...).
> Right
Hi Sasha.
The removal of the sm->p_report_buf is a good idea.
However, I do have one comment:
In several cases this buffer was printed using the osm_log_raw()
function, and you replaced this with a plain fprintf(stdout,...).
Right now the osm_log_raw function just prints to stdout too, but
this
This removes obsolete now shared sm->p_report_buf buffer and cleans
up related code.
Signed-off-by: Sasha Khapyorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
osm/include/opensm/osm_base.h |5 --
osm/include/opensm/osm_sm.h|2 -
osm/include/opensm/osm_state_mgr.h |8 ---
osm/include/opens
