[mpi3-coll] Comments on nonblocking collectives section

[Torsten Hoefler]

Hi Jesper,
> > > p.50, line 20 (or elsewhere), add:
> > > "Completion of a particular nonblocking collective operations does
> > > \emph{not} imply completion of any other posted nonblocking collective
> > > (or send-receive) operations, whether they are posted before or after
> > > the operation in case."
> > hmm, I think this clarification is unnecessary because similar things
> > would apply to nonblocking point-to-point and are not mentioned there
> > (and the semantics are clearly defined). We have Example 5.34 to make
> > this clear, but I'd rather not introduce this to the introductory text.
> >
> I think it is a fairly important semantic issue, and should be said somewhere.
> The (good) example comes at the end of the chapter.
ok, I put it on the agenda for today's  meeting.

> > I'd propose to stay with the reviewed phrasing.
> > 
> Maybe Bronis look it over? Again, the "identical" phrase is in my opinion
> bad (but you changed that).
hmm, I'd still argue for its correctness.

> > > p.68, line 21: does a race condition "cause" non-determinism, or is it
> > > the other way round?
> > I think it's correct because it might match correctly, however, if the
> > race is done in the wrong order, then it's wrong. The casual chain is
> > here: programming mistake -> race condition -> nondeterminism
> > 
> and that's not really what the caption says. I suggest a rewording, will
> try and come up with something
hmm, we can discuss this as well on the telco -> added it to agenda

Thanks & Best,
  Torsten

-- 
 bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ -----
Torsten Hoefler       | Postdoctoral Researcher
Open Systems Lab      | Indiana University    
150 S. Woodlawn Ave.  | Bloomington, IN, 474045, USA
Lindley Hall Room 135 | +01 (812) 855-3608