That would be great with me! And much appreciated. A design would really
On 9/7/06 10:42 AM, "George Bosilca" <bosilca_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I still wonder why we need any configuration "magic". We don't want
> to be the only one around supporting IPv4 OR IPv6. Supporting both of
> them simultaneously can be interesting, and it does not require huge
> changes. In fact, we have a problem only at the connection step,
> everything else will be identically.
> In fact, as we're talking about the TCP layer, we might want to
> finish the discussion we had a while ago, about merging the OOB and
> the BTL in one component. They do have very similar functions, and
> right now we have to maintain 2 components. I think it's more than
> time to do the merge, and move the resulting component or whatever
> down in the OPAL layer.
> I even volunteer for that. Next week I will be away, so I will come
> back with a design for the phone conference on ... well beginning of
> On Sep 7, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Ralph H Castain wrote:
>> Jeff and I talked about this for awhile this morning, and we both
>> (yes, I did change my mind after we discussed all the
>> ramifications). It
>> appears that we should be able to consolidate the code into a single
>> component with the right configuration system "magic" - and that would
>> definitely be preferable.
>> My primary concern originally was with the lack of knowledge and
>> documentation on the configuration system. I know that I don't know
>> about that system to make everything work in a single component. The
>> component method would have allowed you to remain ignorant of that
>> However, with Jeff's willingness to help in that regard, the
>> approach he
>> recommends would be easier for everyone.
>> Hope that doesn't cause too much of a problem.
>> On 9/7/06 9:46 AM, "Jeff Squyres" <jsquyres_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On 9/1/06 12:21 PM, "Adrian Knoth" <adi_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 07:01:25AM -0600, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>>>>> Do you agree to go on with two oob components, tcp and tcp6?
>>>>> Yes, I think that's the right approach
>>>> It's a deal. ;)
>>> Actually, I would disagree here (sorry for jumping in late! :-( ).
>>> Given the amount of code duplication, it seems like a big shame to
>>> make a
>>> separate component that is almost identical.
>>> Can we just have one component that handles both ivp4 and ivp6?
>>> #if's can be added (I'm willing to help with the configure.m4 mojo
>>> -- the
>>> stuff to tell OMPI whether ipv4 and/or ipv6 stuff can be found and
>>> to set
>>> the #define's appropriately).
>>> More specifically -- I can help with component / configure / build
>>> issues. I'll defer on the whole how-to-wire-them-up issue for the
>>> (I've got some other fires burning that must be tended to :-\ ).
>>> My $0.02: OOB is the first target to get working -- once you can
>>> non-MPI apps properly across ipv6 and/or ipv4 nodes, then move on
>>> to the MPI
>>> layer and take the same approach there (e.g., one TCP btl with
>>> mojo, etc.).
>> devel mailing list
> "Half of what I say is meaningless; but I say it so that the other
> half may reach you"
> Kahlil Gibran
> devel mailing list