Jeff Squyres wrote:
Just to make sure that George / Eugene sees this commit
message...
There was a conflict committed in r21551. Can someone check
these compiler warning messages?
Begin forwarded message:
Date: June 26, 2009 9:39:15 PM EDT
Subject: [OMPI svn-full] svn:open-mpi r21552
Author: rhc
Date: 2009-06-26 21:39:15 EDT (Fri, 26 Jun 2009)
New Revision: 21552
URL: https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/changeset/21552
Log:
Remove svn conflict lines due to commit r21551 in the sm btl. I #if 0'd
out the offending line that cause the conflict just in case it was the
correct one. However, this now compiles cleanly, minus the following
warnings that I wasn't sure which way to resolve:
btl_sm.c: In function ‘mca_btl_sm_sendi’:
btl_sm.c:734: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
btl_sm.c: In function ‘mca_btl_sm_send’:
btl_sm.c:812: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
Text files modified:
trunk/ompi/mca/btl/sm/btl_sm_component.c | 5
++---
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Modified: trunk/ompi/mca/btl/sm/btl_sm_component.c
==============================================================================
--- trunk/ompi/mca/btl/sm/btl_sm_component.c (original)
+++ trunk/ompi/mca/btl/sm/btl_sm_component.c 2009-06-26 21:39:15 EDT
(Fri, 26 Jun 2009)
@@ -428,11 +428,10 @@
/* return the fragment */
MCA_BTL_SM_FIFO_WRITE(
mca_btl_sm_component.sm_peers[peer_smp_rank],
-<<<<<<< .mine
my_smp_rank, peer_smp_rank, hdr->frag,
false, true, rc);
-=======
+#if 0
my_smp_rank, peer_smp_rank, hdr->frag,
false, rc);
->>>>>>> .r21550
+#endif
break;
}
case MCA_BTL_SM_FRAG_ACK:
Weird. Okay. I think it's fixed now with r21556. For
the record, I will provide more explanation here than anyone probably
cares for.
The stuff around line 431 of btl_sm_component.c is where the offending
"goto recheck_peer" had been inserted and that George just pulled out.
Namely, the goto caused sm progress to keep draining the FIFO until
there was nothing left, while we agreed it should only poll until a
message fragment was received. So, the "break" above is the correct
behavior. George put it back and then I put my stuff back. There was
a conflict on that one file. I thought I overwrote his stuff (since we
both removed the offending goto statement). I'm not sure what
happened, but it looks like some bad line crept in. I must have done
something wrong with svn in managing that file conflict. Sorry.
For what it's worth, the extra argument you see above for
MCA_BTL_SM_FIFO_WRITE is something I introduced. This macro now first
(before attempting the requested write) sees if there are any pending
sends to retry. Incidentally, how are pending sends retried? Well, by
calling MCA_BTL_SM_FIFO_WRITE! Circular, yes? Yes. So, the extra
argument tells MCA_BTL_SM_FIFO_WRITE whether to retry pending sends or
not.
Regarding the warnings in btl_sm.c, they're from btl_sm_sendi and
btl_sm_send. In each case, when we try to send, we perform a check to
see if there are "lots" of outstanding fragments (sent, but not yet
returned). If there are a "lot", we poll the FIFO to see if we can
reclaim any fragments. The yardstick we use for "a lot" is based on
the FIFO size. So, comparing an int to a size_t. I introduced a
coercion into the code to make the warning go away.
Sorry about the sloppiness on all accounts.
|
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}