[mpiwg-hybridpm] Hybrid telecon fiasco

Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) jsquyres at cisco.com
Thu Apr 10 05:16:58 CDT 2014

On Apr 9, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Jim Dinan <james.dinan at gmail.com> wrote:

> This debate is entirely academic, made possible by the totally (intentionally) evasive definition of MPI processes in the spec.  The language used in the proposal, and the language we have been using all along to describe endpoints is the right language to use.  I'm not suggesting that we change anything.

Nor am I.

Please don't get me wrong -- I realize I am being anal and super picky -- but this sub-thread started when you said "Every process in a communicator...", but you were really referring to *endpoints*, not (MPI) *processes*.

My *only* point in this sub-thread is that we need to be precise in our terminology when talking about this new endpoints stuff.

> Sure, I might be taking a little bit of a leap here.  In the proposal we are saying "everywhere that you see 'process' in the spec, replace it with 'process or endpoint'".

With this proposal, MPI processes are a proper subset of MPI endpoints, so yes, I think that is a correct statement.

Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

More information about the mpiwg-hybridpm mailing list