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

Underwood, Keith D keith.d.underwood at intel.com
Sun May 30 08:05:11 CDT 2010

Well, when Jeff and Bill successfully argued against a definition for atomicity of access for conflicting accesses beyond "undefined", we lost direct support for the UPC memory model.  After that, I no longer cared about ordering and Jeff was still arguing vehemently against ordering, so my understanding was that we had dropped ordering.  I am not sure why we would support ordering without an access granularity definition.


----- Original Message -----
From: mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org <mpi3-rma-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org>
To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group <mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Cc: Brad Chamberlain <bradc at cray.com>
Sent: Sat May 29 22:38:03 2010
Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] mpi3-rma post from bradc at cray.com requires approval

On 05/29/2010 06:24 AM, Underwood, Keith D wrote:
> 1) Ordering:
> 	a) Ordered from a given source to a given address on a given target (unordered otherwise), or
> 	b) completely unordered

My understanding was that we were providing both 1a and 1b. Or rather, 
MPI-2 already gives 1b, and we are proposing 1a together with it (not 
instead of it).

  -- Pavan

Pavan Balaji
mpi3-rma mailing list
mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org

More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list