[Mpi3-rma] Proposal 2

[Underwood, Keith D]

As I remember it, "first readings" are ready for a vote, so it is probably not that; however, it should probably look a lot like a first reading in terms of detail so that we can get consensus on what changes are needed for a first reading the next time.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi3-rma-
> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Rajeev Thakur
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:41 PM
> To: 'MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group'
> Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] Proposal 2
> 
> At the upcoming meeting, do we want to have an official reading of the
> proposal or do we want to just run both proposals by the Forum (i.e.,
> socialize the ideas) first and have the official reading next time?
> 
> Rajeev
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > [mailto:mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of
> > Underwood, Keith D
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 4:28 PM
> > To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group
> > Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] Proposal 2
> >
> > What we don't have for proposal 1 yet is an implementation.
> > Brian had indicated that he could create an interesting
> > MPI_Win_alloc() implementation, but I don't know his timeline
> > for doing that.  Do we have other implementation volunteers?
> > These seem easy, since it should be a copy and paste of code
> > from unlock:
> >
> > MPI_Win_flush()
> > MPI_Win_flushall()
> >
> > These seem a little harder, since they involve some actual new code:
> >
> > MPI_Win_lockall()
> > MPI_Win_unlockall()
> > MPI_Get_Accumulate()
> > MPI_Compare_and_swap()
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi3-rma-
> > > bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Rajeev Thakur
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:22 PM
> > > To: mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > > Subject: [Mpi3-rma] Proposal 2
> > >
> > > There are less than 3 weeks to go before the next Forum meeting.
> > > Proposal 1 is more or less there, but we don't have a Proposal 2.
> We
> > > got
> > > a bit bogged down in allflushall, but other than that is there
> > > consensus
> > > on other topics to create a Proposal 2? Allflushall can be
> > included in
> > > there and debated separately (with a time limit :-)).
> > >
> > > Rajeev
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mpi3-rma mailing list
> > > mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpi3-rma mailing list
> > mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma