[Mpi3-rma] Updated proposal 1

[Rajeev Thakur]

In Example 11.12, don't you want the unlock to be after the read value on process A?

In Example 11.15, why is a Win_sync needed after the lock_all?

In Example 11.16, why is a flush needed immediately before the unlock_all?

In Example 11.17, why is the sync needed after the lock_all, and why is the flush needed before the unlock_all?

Rajeev

On Feb 1, 2011, at 10:04 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> I updated the proposal as discussed in our last telecon (including
> Rajeev's comments -- thanks!). Significant changes:
> 
> - moved all info keys to win_create
> - added info key about operation
> - changed ordering info key to be more flexible
> - fixed examples
> - added comment for Pavan to fix a comment
> - changed the color of the proposal 2 merges (as they are still being
>  discussed and need a better letter than "n").
> 
> The complete diff is attached to this email and the documents on the
> wiki are updated. Please review!
> 
> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/attachment/wiki/mpi3-rma-proposal1/
> 
> Thanks & All the Best,
>  Torsten
> 
> -- 
> bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ -----
> Torsten Hoefler         | Performance Modeling and Simulation Lead
> Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois (UIUC)
> 1205 W Clark Street     | Urbana, IL, 61801
> NCSA Building           | +01 (217) 244-7736
> <diff-01022011.txt>_______________________________________________
> mpi3-rma mailing list
> mpi3-rma at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma