Jeff thought it was me and I thought it was you, so I think we're ok :).
On 7/2/13 9:45 AM, "George Bosilca" <bosilca_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>I definitively wonder why ? Whoever was the "resistance" might have had a
>good (r at least valid) orison. I can't find any trace of your patch, but
>I would definitively be interested to take a look at it (if you can
>resend it) to avoid triggering the same type of opposition.
>On Jul 2, 2013, at 17:17 , Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquyres_at_[hidden]>
>> I submitted a patch like this a while ago, and it met violent
>>resistance. :-) Although no one on the call today remembers exactly
>>who raised the resistance...
>> On Jul 2, 2013, at 10:40 AM, "Barrett, Brian W" <bwbarre_at_[hidden]>
>>> On 7/2/13 8:22 AM, "George Bosilca" <bosilca_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Our macros for the OMPI-level free list had one extra argument, a
>>>>possible return value to signal that the operation of retrieving the
>>>>element from the free list failed. However in this case the returned
>>>>pointer was set to NULL as well, so the error code was redundant.
>>>>Moreover, this was a continuous source of warnings when the picky mode
>>>> The attached parch remove the rc argument from the OMPI_FREE_LIST_GET
>>>>and OMPI_FREE_LIST_WAIT macros, and change to check if the item is
>>>>NULL instead of using the return code.
>>>> Deadline: July 4th
>>> Works for me.
>>> Brian W. Barrett
>>> Scalable System Software Group
>>> Sandia National Laboratories
>>> devel mailing list
>> Jeff Squyres
>> For corporate legal information go to:
>> devel mailing list
>devel mailing list
Brian W. Barrett
Scalable System Software Group
Sandia National Laboratories
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s