-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 497
Config type fixes #10997
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Config type fixes #10997
Conversation
WalkthroughTwo configuration table entries had their config value types changed: UCP's DYNAMIC_TL_PROGRESS_FACTOR switched from time-units to uint, and UCT self's NUM_DEVICES switched from int to unsigned long. AUTHORS gained one new contributor. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes
Poem
Pre-merge checks and finishing touches✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (9)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
da4da6d to
1a484a0
Compare
size_t may be larger than an int. This causes issue on big endian systems Signed-off-by: Nicolas Morey <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Morey <[email protected]>
1a484a0 to
87cf007
Compare
While debugging mpich 4.3.2 with ch4:ucx on s390x, several issues popped up.
Found, and tested on 1.19.0
First:
This fixed by the first patch. Config parser was wrongly looking for a time instead of a regular int. Not sure why I only see this on s390 though.
Second:
This is caused by UCT/SELF scaning the option to a uint while it is a size_t in memory.
Summary by CodeRabbit