[Mpi3-rma] Updated proposal 1

Torsten Hoefler htor at illinois.edu
Mon Feb 7 18:10:47 CST 2011

On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 06:00:01PM -0600, Rajeev Thakur wrote:
> 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?
Correct, I simply added the lock_all, unlock_all because it was defined
to be inside such an epoch. This is is correct but might be simplified
as Rajeev pointed out :-).

All instances are fixed now (see new attached documents).

I also fixed a bug in the MPI_Get_accumulate() C interface which Adam
pointed out to me a second ago (we need more reviews).

Thanks & All the Best,

 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

More information about the mpiwg-rma mailing list