[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <884d357b8222bf7d8bc47d00d92b2053@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 09:03:59 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: MPI vs. --fork
On 3 May, 2013, at 14:37 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 May, 2013, at 14:33 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 02:14:43PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>>> I tried this but I can't just use the original rec_restore_args(1) because it tries to give each MPI process an exclusive lock, which fails.
>>
>> Why does it fail? Doesn't each MPI process use its own .rec file? If
>> not, then how are they supposed to work (and allow for --restore)?
>
> Sure they have, but they fail when all of them is trying to read the main, unnumbered, session file when restoring. This is no problem for -fork because it hasn't forked yet. MPI has all "children" already running!
I now had rec_restore_args() recognize the argument 2 (actually anything not 0 or 1) meaning LOCK_SH.
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
