Yes. I am starting that conversation in another email thread (still working on it). I did not want that discussion to distract here.<div><br></div><div>-- Josh<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Sur, Sayantan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sayantan.sur@intel.com">sayantan.sur@intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Hi Josh,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I think we also had another discussion that Darius initiated regarding this. We discussed that we will allow p2p communication on communicator with ‘holes’,
but disallow collectives. Since this seemed to satisfy your use cases. We were thinking about bringing in the validate as an “add-on” ticket. Are we still on track to do that?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">===</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Sayantan Sur, Ph.D.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Intel Corp.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> <a href="mailto:mpi3-ft-bounces@lists.mpi-forum.org" target="_blank">mpi3-ft-bounces@lists.mpi-forum.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:mpi3-ft-bounces@lists.mpi-forum.org" target="_blank">mpi3-ft-bounces@lists.mpi-forum.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Josh Hursey<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Mpi3-ft] MPI_Comm_validate - What's in a name?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the call today it was suggested that we re-evaluate the name MPI_Comm_validate. It was pointed out that 'validate' seems a bit too close to 'invalid' which is probably not the semantic that we are trying to imply with the name. An alternative
is 'check', but that is a bit close to 'checkpoint' so might not be the best either. So we are looking for a good name.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We started a similar discussion for reenable_any_source, which might lend some ideas:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mpi3-ft/2011/12/0931.php" target="_blank">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mpi3-ft/2011/12/0931.php</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The semantic behind MPI_Comm_validate [at the moment] are:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> (1) A fault tolerant synchronization point returning a consistent value (failed group) at all participating processes<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> (2) Allow for the posting of new collective operations on the communicator (a communicator with potential holes in it)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Name suggestions are welcome.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Josh<br>
<br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>
Joshua Hursey<br>
Postdoctoral Research Associate<br>
Oak Ridge National Laboratory<br>
<a href="http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey" target="_blank">http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
mpi3-ft mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mpi3-ft@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpi3-ft@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft" target="_blank">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Joshua Hursey<br>
Postdoctoral Research Associate<br>Oak Ridge National Laboratory<br><a href="http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey" target="_blank">http://users.nccs.gov/~jjhursey</a><br>