[Mpi3-rma] mpi3-rma post from bradc at cray.com requires approval

[Pavan Balaji]

On 06/05/2010 10:54 AM, Underwood, Keith D wrote:
> Yeah, (4) exists, but I didn't list it because, as you observe, (2)
> is the analogue of it and is "the MPI way".

I listed (4) because we didn't decide in the previous meeting whether to 
go with (2) or (4).

> We would need to think about whether we have to have the whole
> message ordered or ordered on a per target address basis.

Atomicity and ordering go hand-in-hand; if there's no atomicity, 
ordering doesn't make sense. Since we have basic datatype atomicity for 
accumulate/get_accumulate, ordering would make sense at that granularity 
as well.

If someone wants to propose full-message atomicity, then we can consider 
ordering at that granularity too. But till then, whole message ordering 
is an overkill.

  -- Pavan

-- 
Pavan Balaji
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji