[Mpi-forum] ticket 273

[Mohamad Chaarawi]

Hi Rich,

On 5/30/2012 3:03 PM, Richard Graham wrote:
> Mohamad,
>    Two items that I wrote down based on comments:
>   - One view was expressed that adding a nonblocking interface, will not change the fact that implementation will still be blocking

The implementation that UH provides builds on top of libnbc which 
implements the non-blocking collective communication operations.. They 
use non blocking point-to-point operations and asynchronous 
aio_read/aio_write functions. So what part of that is blocking?

btw, why was this concern not mentioned during the formal reading or on 
the I/O mailing list?

> - The ticket was rushed, and not ready

This ticket was going back and forth for a little less than a year.. I 
don't any reason why it is considered rushed.. Again most of the I/O 
chapter committee reviewed and approved it..
Other than final merging issues what was wrong with ticket? and again 
why were they not brought up till the Japan vote, where we were not 
there to address them?

Thanks,
Mohamad

>
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Mohamad Chaarawi
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:37 AM
> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Subject: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm still trying to figure out why ticket 273 was voted down. At the last meeting, I would say there was a consensus that the non blocking collective I/O ticket (273) was ready to be voted in. Nobody expressed an objection after me removing the shared file pointer nbc routines and re-reading the draft. All the I/O chapter committee reviewed the draft and commented on the ticket that it looks good.
>
> At the Japan meeting, we get 8 yes , 2 nos, and 6 abstains, which under the new rules marks the ticket as failed.
> None from our organization could attend the meeting to really understand what the 2 no votes were for, and why 6 organizations abstained.
> If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand what is being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. If the abstains where for something else, then the votes should be NO. So could someone mention why this was voted down?
>
> Thanks,
> Mohamad
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum