Skip to content

Permit usage of MPI when QuEST is non-distributed#765

Open
TysonRayJones wants to merge 3 commits into
cleanup-custom-mpifrom
permit-mpi-usage-without-distrib-quest
Open

Permit usage of MPI when QuEST is non-distributed#765
TysonRayJones wants to merge 3 commits into
cleanup-custom-mpifrom
permit-mpi-usage-without-distrib-quest

Conversation

@TysonRayJones
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

  • added comm_isActive to indicate whether QuEST is using MPI (which is distinct from whether MPI itself is initialised)
  • renamed comm_isInit to comm_isMpiInit, since it queries MPI directly/globally, and when true, does not indicate whether QuEST is actually using MPI
  • record isMpiUserOwned within comm_config.cpp, since failed-validation must not kill user-owned MPI, and it must know user-ownership before QuESTEnv succeeds/records it (because validation can fail DURING QuESTEnv initialisation)
  • explicitly divided (through doc) comm_config.cpp into things which query MPI globally, and thinks which query only QuEST's MPI env/communicator -

- added comm_isActive to indicate whether QuEST is using MPI (which is distinct from whether MPI itself is initialised)
- renamed comm_isInit to comm_isMpiInit, since it queries MPI directly/globally, and when true, does not indicate whether QuEST is actually using MPI
- record isMpiUserOwned within comm_config.cpp, since failed-validation must not kill user-owned MPI, and it must know user-ownership before QuESTEnv succeeds/records it (because validation can fail DURING QuESTEnv initialisation)
- explicitly divided (through doc) comm_config.cpp into things which query MPI globally, and thinks which query only QuEST's MPI env/communicator
-
as found by Codex! All hail our new overlords
@TysonRayJones TysonRayJones requested a review from otbrown May 30, 2026 22:22
@TysonRayJones
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

@otbrown This is a substantial change/diff and would be a tedium to review, so don't feel obliged to look at the code! Just checking that the changes as summarised in the text above are conceptually okay / not objectionable 🙏

@otbrown
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

otbrown commented Jun 1, 2026

Yep this all sounds fine to me!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants