[Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings

Sat Dec 6 13:35:16 CST 2008

Dear Bronis,

Thank you. This is the first time I hear that consistency weakens one's hand. Anyway, I'm not after veto power, nor I trying to "order" or "request" anything. When we agreed to be in on it, we agreed to the rules, and will consistently follow them.

All I say is that from our point of view, the matter requires more discussion before it will be ready to go into the standard. Turning back to the substance from the pure textual review would be appropriate then. This is what I suggested (see below for exact wording).

I would suggest that we turn from formally following the process to making sure what we put into the standard is good for MPI and the HPC community. Looking at the text alone won't help here I'm afraid. Brainstorming possible counter-examples may.

If you disagree with this suggestion, so be it. I expressed my opinion. You expressed yours. I would suggest that now we let the Forum decide what to do about this matter.

Best regards.

Alexander 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bronis R. de Supinski [mailto:bronis_at_[hidden]] 
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 7:50 PM
To: Supalov, Alexander
Cc: MPI 2.2
Subject: RE: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings

Alexander:

Re:
> Thank you. Intel position on these issues has not changed a jot. We've
> been consistently against them from day 1, and consistently voted them
> down, for reasons I mentioned elsewhere.

OK, then I guess Intel voted against. You were
very much in the minority.

> The new memory remapping scenario that highlights how detrimental the
> proposed changes may be to the MPI implementations was added after the
> first vote because this occurred to me after substantial contemplation.
> This happens to all of us once in a while I guess.

My response is that your scenario is not significantly
different from the previous performance concerns. It
does not fundamentally change the discussion.

> In my opinion, continuing the work on wording is OK as long as the
> substance is OK. In this case, I believe the substance is not OK. This
> is why I'm suggesting to suspend the work on wording until we all agree
> that the matter is OK in principle.

Frankly, that you have confirmed Intel has previously
voted against the issue makes your position weaker.
You seem to want veto power but that is not how the
rules work. You have one vote as a member institution.
You lost the first round. You can continue to raise
your objections. Perhaps that will lead to a different
outcome for the second vote. However, you cannot veto
further progress prior to that vote.

> If you disagree, this will be your decision. I'm not going to be at the
> next meeting and am using the medium available to me to promote our
> point of view. I hope this is OK with the Forum at large.

I stated you have the right to state your opinion.
You do not have the right to order review of the
issues suspended. In fact, simply requesting it is
not appropriate.

Bronis

> Best regards.
>
> Alexander
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Bronis R. de Supinski
> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 7:25 PM
> To: MPI 2.2
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings
>
>
> Alexander:
>
> Re:
> > Pursuant to the discussion of #45 (send buffer access) that this #46
> > depends upon, I would suggest to suspend the review until we clear
> > situation around #45.
>
> While it is within your rights to suggest that we "suspend
> the review" of these items, I object to your timing. The
> issues have already had a first vote. You can raise concerns
> about them but I see no reason that we should cease to
> make progress on the wording when the vast majority (I
> don't recall if the vote was unanimous but it was not close)
> have agreed to them.
>
> Perhaps more importantly, your objections have been discussed
> from the first that Erez brought up the issues. Frankly, I
> have not seen anything in your objections that changes the
> extensive discussion on these issues. While it may be that
> you have changed your position (and Intel's?) on them, I
> strongly doubt that others will be convinced.
>
> In my opinion, Erez should definitely proceed with the
> reviews. If you want to object to the solutions, you will
> have an opportunity when the issues come up for their second
> vote the week after next.
>
> Bronis
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Best regards.
> >
> > Alexander
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba
> > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:04 PM
> > To: MPI 2.2
> > Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - add const keyword to the C bindings
> >
> > This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers.  We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal. The proposal is short so don't be intimidated.  :) plus I need the chapter authors to sign-off on the changes to the API (that the text is correct).
> >
> > Chapter Authors (it's less than a handful lines for each chapter)
> >
> > Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication
> > Chapter 4: Datatypes
> > Chapter 5: Collective Communication
> > Chapter 6: Groups, Contexts, Communicators, and Caching
> > Chapter 7: Process Topologies
> > Chapter 8: MPI Environmental Management
> > Chapter 9: The Info Object
> > Chapter 10: Process Creation and Management
> > Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication
> > Chapter 13: I/O
> > Chapter 15: Deprecated Functions
> > Chapter 16: Language Bindings
> >
> >
> > Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments.
> >
> > Add const Keyword to the C bindings: https:// svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/46
> >
> > Thanks,
> > .Erez
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Intel GmbH
> > Dornacher Strasse 1
> > 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany
> > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
> > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer
> > Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr.
> > VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
> > Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052
> >
> > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> > the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> > recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-22 mailing list
> mpi-22_at_[hidden]
> http:// lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel GmbH
> Dornacher Strasse 1
> 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer
> Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr.
> VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
> Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel GmbH
Dornacher Strasse 1
85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer
Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr.
VAT Registration No.: DE129385895
Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.