[mpiwg-tools] Tools topics meeting reminder: Jan 19, 2017

[Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)]

On Feb 2, 2017, at 7:02 AM, Marc-Andre Hermanns <hermanns at jara.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> 
> I did not want to mandate a specific length. The way I understand it
> is that the ID is an integer of some length, where parts can be masked
> and queried for information.

I think what I was trying to say (poorly) was that I am proposing a *logical* tuple.  How long each item is in the tuple, and how we map that to C types are different questions.

Your proposed prototype had a single uint64_t parameter; I just wanted to make sure we were still talking about a tuple, not a single (logical) value.

> In my last mail, yes, but I do acknowledge that additional fields are
> necessary. I just asked about the vendor ID, as that is the one mostly
> regulated, right? The vendors are free to use the remaining bits as
> they see fit, right?

I would think so.

> Yes, I read about the OUI. As far as I know, these are _bought_ from
> and controlled by IEEE. How would an MPI vendor obtain one of those to
> use for software events from inside the MPI?

Buy one.

-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com