Open MPI logo

Open MPI Development Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Development mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI devel] [patch] Invalid MPI_Status for null or inactive request
From: George Bosilca (bosilca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-15 08:30:43


I fail to see the cases your patch addresses. I recognize I did not have the time to look over all the instances where we deal with persistent inactive requests, but at the first occurrence, the one in req_test.c line 68, the case you exhibit there is already covered by the test "request->req_state == OMPI_REQUEST_INACTIVE". I see similar checks in all the other test/wait files. Basically, it doesn't matter that we leave the last returned error code on an inactive request, as we always return MPI_STATUS_EMPTY in the status for such requests.


On Oct 15, 2012, at 07:02 , "Kawashima, Takahiro" <t-kawashima_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Open MPI developers,
> How is my updated patch?
> If there is an another concern, I'll try to update it.
>>>>> The bugs are:
>>>>> (1) MPI_SOURCE of MPI_Status for a null request must be MPI_ANY_SOURCE.
>>>>> (2) MPI_Status for an inactive request must be an empty status.
>>>>> (3) Possible BUS errors on sparc64 processors.
>>>>> r23554 fixed possible BUS errors on sparc64 processors.
>>>>> But the fix seems to be insufficient.
>>>>> We should use OMPI_STATUS_SET macro for all user-supplied
>>>>> MPI_Status objects.
>>>> Regarding #3, see also a trac 3218. I'm putting a fix back today. Sorry
>>>> for the delay. One proposed solution was extending the use of the
>>>> OMPI_STATUS_SET macros, but I think the consensus was to fix the problem
>>>> in the Fortran layer. Indeed, the Fortran layer already routinely
>>>> converts between Fortran and C statuses. The problem was that we started
>>>> introducing optimizations to bypass the Fortran-to-C conversion and that
>>>> optimization was employed too liberally (e..g, in situations that would
>>>> introduce the alignment errors you're describing). My patch will clean
>>>> that up. I'll try to put it back in the next few hours.
>>> Sorry, I didn't notice the ticket 3218.
>>> Now I've confirmed your commit r27403.
>>> Your modification is better for my issue (3).
>>> With r27403, my patch for issue (1) and (2) needs modification.
>>> I'll re-send modified patch in a few hours.
>> The updated patch is attached.
>> This patch addresses bugs (1) and (2) in my previous mail
>> and fixes some typos in comments.
> Regards,
> Takahiro Kawashima,
> MPI development team,
> Fujitsu
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel_at_[hidden]