[Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket

[Richard Graham]

I can certainly do this, but this has potentially broad implications to a central part of the MPI standard, so discussion needs to be in a natural and visible place.  This is not the first time this sort of idea has been raised (I remember this being discussed well before the Forum was restarted almost 7 years ago) and it was shot down quickly, so need to make sure we have a broad and well thought out discussion here.

Rich

From: mpi-forum [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 3:52 AM
To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket

I recommend signing up for the hybrid WG email list and adding yourself to the cc box of both tickets.

December in San Jose is a great time to discuss these tickets and you'll be current on both at that point.

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:32 AM, Richard Graham <richardg at mellanox.com<mailto:richardg at mellanox.com>> wrote:
It has some of the interested parties, not all.  I am interested in such items, and thought that the whole topic had fallen off the plate, so was very surprised to hear there is a concrete proposal, which in my view is incomplete.

Rich

From: mpi-forum [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 3:29 AM
To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket

Hybrid WG already had all the interested parties and was active. I don't recall p2p WG was particularly active when discussion of 381 started ~2 years ago.

As always, every member of the forum can participate in any WG and 381/461 were always discussed in the open for anyone to see.

As it currently stands, p2p WG has more than enough to discuss without this ticket.

Note also that some of the info keys discussed have a greater impact when threads are involved, hence are connected to hybrid.

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 30, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Richard Graham <richardg at mellanox.com<mailto:richardg at mellanox.com>> wrote:
Why is such a proposal coming out of the hybrid working group ?  This is more appropriate for the point-to-point working group.  Not that it is that critical what the group name is, but more to get feedback from a wide range of folks interested is such topics.

Rich

From: mpi-forum [mailto:mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jim Dinan
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 8:58 AM
To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
Subject: [Mpi-forum] Info Keys Ticket

Hi All,

The hybrid working group would like to put forward ticket #461 (https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/461) for consideration for MPI 3.1, with a formal reading at the upcoming December meeting.

This ticket proposes the no_any_tag and no_any_source info keys, on which we have achieved consensus.  We continue to have vigorous and productive debate on additional communicator info keys proposals that have been captured in #381.  We will pursue these additional proposals for MPI 4.0.

Thanks and see you in December,
 ~Jim.

_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto: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<mailto:mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20141130/9453a5da/attachment-0001.html>