[mpiwg-ft] Fwd: MPI FT chapter comments (from Bill Gropp)

[Jim Dinan]

I think there's a good chance we can resolve the "lock" correction over
email, unless you guys want more discussion on this.


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Wesley Bland <wbland at anl.gov> wrote:

> I think we started this process during the last meeting. It's still not
> gone, but it's something we're working on. We should try to schedule a time
> where (at least) the three of us can get together and go over another draft
> of the text.
>
> Thanks,
> Wesley
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Aurélien Bouteiller <bouteill at icl.utk.edu
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> p 597, mid page.  What is "the lock"?  Note that WIN_LOCK/UNLOCK is not
>>> a mutex - it has to do with the beginning and ending of a passive target
>>> epoch.
>>>
>>> This is a good comment; talking about a "lock" is informal and useful
>> for discussion, but not good standard-eze.  What we mean here is that a
>> process has reserved resources associated with an RMA access epoch, and it
>> cannot release those resources because of a failure.  The particulars of
>> when resources are reserved, what they are, and how they are released are
>> only very loosely defined by the MPI spec, so we should try to describe
>> this using fairly abstract language.
>>
>>  ~Jim.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpiwg-ft mailing list
>> mpiwg-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpiwg-ft mailing list
> mpiwg-ft at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpiwg-ft
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpiwg-ft/attachments/20140321/e916e518/attachment-0001.html>