-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 398
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
prov/shm: proposal for new shm architecture #10693
Draft
aingerson
wants to merge
13
commits into
ofiwg:main
Choose a base branch
from
aingerson:shm_new_draft
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+2,089
−2,784
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
13 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
453852f
prov/shm: simplify headers so everything is included in smr.h
aingerson cca1bb7
include/ofi_mem: add function to return number of free elements in fr…
aingerson d032d6d
include/ofi.h: add compile time static assert
aingerson 7fa5aff
prov/shm: new shm
aingerson aad2d87
prov/shm: consolidate cma and xpmem caps
aingerson 38c3f86
prov/shm: add a pointer to the map to the EP
aingerson 4840a19
prov/shm: remove map->lock and use util_av->lock instead
aingerson 3141b65
prov/shm: remove smr_fabric
aingerson 3b57cd2
prov/shm: refactor progress functions into function pointers
aingerson a625db0
prov/shm: merge tx and pend entries for simple management of pending …
aingerson 4f226d6
prov/shm: remove proto data
aingerson 1a73441
prov/shm: fix dsa implementation
aingerson 25075b8
prov/shm: bug fixes and cleanups without a category
aingerson File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Use _Static_assert instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The syntax of the _Static_assert varies depending on standard so I went with a new one for simplicity. But I can change it to point to the correct one based on what we're using if you think that'd be better?