On 24/01/13 02:54, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
>> [snip] Basic point is - this is an insufficiently validated patch
>> referred to as "an ugly kludge" by the original author (Jon
>> Masters_at_Red Hat), who created it to be able to include it in the
>> Fedora ARMv5 port. I has previously provided suggestions for
>> improvements, but it has still been submitted to the Open MPI
>> users list without any of those suggestions being acted on.
>> I admit to being slightly miffed with it being accepted and
>> applied without ever being mentioned on the Open MPI developers
> It was done by one of the core committers (George); it's in our
> community's culture to go commit without discussion on the devel
> list for many kinds of things.
OK. In which case I probably _should_ be on that list.
*cough* might I however suggest that a statement to that effect is added
to http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/ompi.php ?
> FWIW: Since we all know each other pretty well, we do a lot of
> communication via IM and telephone in addition to the public mailing
> list discussions. This is not because we're discussing secret
> things -- it's just that you can get a lot more accomplished in a 10
> minute phone call than 15 back-n-forth, 10-page, highly detailed
>> A list to which I now find myself subscribed to without having
>> asked for or being told about - miffed again.
> Sorry about that; this was my fault. I interpreted your off-post
> mails to me about not being able to post to the users list as an ask
> to be subscribed (since we don't allow posts from unsubscribed
Understandable - apologies for overreacting.
> Rather than unsubscribe you, though, I just marked you as "nomail"
> on the users' list. So you won't receive any further mail from that
> list, but you're still subscribed, so you can post.
> I tested this patch in v1.6 and v1.7 on my Pi, and it seems to work
> just fine. "make check" passes all the ASM tests.
Just to be perfectly clear: it wouldn't on ARMv5 though, and the ARMv6
ASM test executed with NOPs for barriers, although it would correctly
pass all other tests.
> To be clear: I consider you to be the primary author and maintainer
> of this code, and you're certainly more of an ARM expert than any of
> us. George may not have realized that someone from ARM was still an
> active part of the community; I'm not sure.
I'm certainly not very visible :)
But I do try to pay attention.
> But I, too, vote that we should back out his changes from the trunk
> and put your suggested patch (his patch did not make it over to v1.6
> or v1.7, because I was waiting for your response).
> We actually do try to get consensus for these kinds of things, so
> let's give George a little time to respond before backing it out.
-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.