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.