Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] [RFC] mca_base_open() NULL
From: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-08 07:50:36


FWIW:

- I think "none" is a slightly better word than "null" for this value;
"none" implies that you don't open anything, whereas "null" could be a
specific component (as it is/was in some frameworks).

- Whatever word we decide on will need to become a reserved component
name (i.e., no components will be able to use that as their name). We
should adjust autogen.sh and friends to ensure that no component has
this name (not difficult -- just make autogen.sh abort if it finds a
component of this name).

- Is this value supposed to be accessible/usable by users, or is it
meant to only be used internally?

--> If intended to be used by users, I marginally prefer a single,
lower case, simple word (e.g., "none") vs. a caps word -- it's easier
to type and is consistent with our other values. I recognize that we
don't want users to use the value by accident, and making it all caps
makes it stand out, but I think the consistency issues are more
important.

--> If not intended to be used by users (i.e., it's an internal
mechanism only), is there a reason why we're not using a zero-length
string (e.g., mpirun --mca foo "")?

On May 6, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Josh Hursey wrote:

> What: Add a MCA-NULL option to open no components in mca_base_open()
> Why: Sometimes we do not want to open or select any components of
> a framework.
> Where: patch attached for current trunk.
> When: Needs further discussion.
> Timeout: Unknown. [May 13, 2008 (After teleconf)?]
>
>
> Short Version:
> --------------
> This RFC is intended to continue discussion on the thread started
> here:
> http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/devel/2008/05/3793.php
>
> Discussion should occur on list, but maybe try to come to some
> settlement on this RFC in the next week or two.
>
> Longer Version:
> ---------------
> Currently there is no way to express to the MCA system that
> absolutely no components of a framework are needed and therefore
> nothing should be opened. The addition of a sentinel value is needed
> to explicitly express this intention. It was suggested that if a
> 'MCA-NULL' value is passed as an argument for a framework then this
> should be taken to indicate such an intention.
>
> <mca-null.diff>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel

-- 
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems