On Jun 26, 2008, at 3:08 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> Here is the solution I propose. If you think there is any problem
> with it, please let me know asap.
> Move the progress function from the BML layer back into the PML.
> Then the PML will have a way to check on it's pending requests, and
> progress them accordingly. This solution offer the same number of
> function calls as what we have today, and should only minimally
> affect the performances (one more if in the progress function).
Note that this would *not* force a progress function to exist in cm --
which (IIRC) was one of the reasons that the PML progress function was
removed. The way George described it to me, the pml base would check
for != NULL before registering it.