- Mpi-22 - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

Thanks. Can the report queries be changed to show the ticket state and priority as well? This would provide visual cue to those looking for tickets waiting for review. -----Original Message----- From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:50 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders I sent this diagram of ticket states around shortly after the last meeting, but I didn't get any comments back. So perhaps it would be better to send it to a wider audience. According to this diagram, any ticket in the "Not ready" / "Forum feedback requested" / "Waiting for reviews" state could be waiting for reviews. Perhaps we need something better than this (i.e., a separate bit indicating that a ticket is awaiting reviews). On Dec 5, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > Hi, > > It would be great to learn how to identify tickets that are up for > review in the first place. All colors and fields I can see in the > standard reports don't seem to help much in this. > > Best regards. > > Alexander > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > ] On Behalf Of William Gropp > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 5:07 PM > To: Bronis R. de Supinski; MPI 2.2 > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders > > As an immediate step, we can do the following: > > Authors of tickets that are ready for review should do the following: > (a) add a comment to the ticket with the names of the reviewers (the > relevant chapter author and 3 other volunteers) > (b) contact the reviewers to remind them > > Having a separate, searchable field would be nice, but this would > capture the data now. > > Bill > > On Dec 5, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > >> >> Bill and Jeff: >> >> It will be really useful if the tickets listed reviewers. In the >> least >> we need some way to map tickets to reviewers (I am thinking about >> chapter >> authors in particular), Could Jeff add a field (or fields) that the >> owner is responsible for completing that indicates the reviewers? >> >> As it is I am really unclear over what I am supposed to review. I am >> guessing there are at least one or two for my chapter... >> >> Bronis >> >> >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, William Gropp wrote: >> >>> Our next MPI 2.2 discussion is in just over a week, and we have a >>> lot >>> to do. Please have a look at the wiki for the following (see https:// >>> svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/report >>> for the reports): >>> >>> 1) For your own tickets, make sure that they are up to date. If >>> reviewers are needed, please contact them and encourage them to >>> submit >>> their reviews. If revised text is needed, please update the text >>> and >>> if you would like early feedback, notify this list. >>> >>> 2) For items on which you are a reviewer (particularly MPI 2.1 >>> chapter >>> authors), please review the relevant tickets. When you are >>> reviewing >>> text, make sure that you are looking at the current MPI 2.1 >>> standard; >>> check page and line numbers as well as the context to ensure that >>> the >>> change is correct. >>> >>> 3) For other tickets, review them and raise any issues that you have >>> *now* so that we can start the discussion before our meeting. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Bill -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45)
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

Dear Alexander, It is okay and encouraged for people to comment and argue on the proposals. You can add your comments to the ticket arguing your important points. The forum then consider that various points and vote on the proposal. However for the voting process we need people to review the text and confirm that it does not conflict with the standard and it is reasonable (from language pov) to be included in the standard. If we are willing to review the text and state that it valid for the standard, that would be great. If you have any comments on the text please send them to me. Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Supalov, Alexander Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:26 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) Dear Erez, Thank you. I'm afraid I would need to have it explained in more detail why review may not include arguments on the substance. If something in the proposal makes one think that the proposed matter may be detrimental to the MPI standard and its implementations, I consider it one's duty to point this out. Following up on your reply: the segfault situation you described will make an MPI compliant program break. Thus, the implementation will have to keep the send buffer mapped into the sending process address space. This is a limitation on the MPI implementation that should be taken into account during the voting. Another possibility that has been pointed out earlier was that the proposed change disallows byte swap and other send buffer conversions to be done in place. At least one historical MPI implementation was doing this to a great avail. Who knows what is going to happen in the future? Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:18 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) I think that the idea is for the reviewers to check the text for any mistakes and compatibility with the existing text, rather than check for the validity of the proposal. The later as I recall is left for the MPI forum assembly. As for your question, I'm sure that you can answer it yourself. :) If the memory is still also mapped to the original process (as with shared memory) that everything is fine. If the memory is removed from the original process, than the app will get an access-violation fault. (if this system works on a page boundary, to take this action it needs to make sure that there are no other allocation on the same page) Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Supalov, Alexander Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:05 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) Hi, I'd like to review this proposal. Let's consider the following scenario: - In the MPI_Isend, MPI maps the send buffer into the address space of the receiving process. - In the matching MPI_Recv, the receiving process makes a copy of the mapped send buffer into the receive buffer. - Once the copy is complete, the send buffer is mapped back into the sender address space during the wait/test call. What will happen one tries to access the send buffer in between? Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 10:48 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal, plus the 3 chapter authors to sign-off on the text. The Chapter Authors for Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication Chapter 5: Collective Communication Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. Send Buffer Access: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/45 Thanks, .Erez --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

I sent this diagram of ticket states around shortly after the last meeting, but I didn't get any comments back. So perhaps it would be better to send it to a wider audience. According to this diagram, any ticket in the "Not ready" / "Forum feedback requested" / "Waiting for reviews" state could be waiting for reviews. Perhaps we need something better than this (i.e., a separate bit indicating that a ticket is awaiting reviews). On Dec 5, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Supalov, Alexander wrote: > Hi, > > It would be great to learn how to identify tickets that are up for > review in the first place. All colors and fields I can see in the > standard reports don't seem to help much in this. > > Best regards. > > Alexander > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] > ] On Behalf Of William Gropp > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 5:07 PM > To: Bronis R. de Supinski; MPI 2.2 > Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders > > As an immediate step, we can do the following: > > Authors of tickets that are ready for review should do the following: > (a) add a comment to the ticket with the names of the reviewers (the > relevant chapter author and 3 other volunteers) > (b) contact the reviewers to remind them > > Having a separate, searchable field would be nice, but this would > capture the data now. > > Bill > > On Dec 5, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > >> >> Bill and Jeff: >> >> It will be really useful if the tickets listed reviewers. In the >> least >> we need some way to map tickets to reviewers (I am thinking about >> chapter >> authors in particular), Could Jeff add a field (or fields) that the >> owner is responsible for completing that indicates the reviewers? >> >> As it is I am really unclear over what I am supposed to review. I am >> guessing there are at least one or two for my chapter... >> >> Bronis >> >> >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, William Gropp wrote: >> >>> Our next MPI 2.2 discussion is in just over a week, and we have a >>> lot >>> to do. Please have a look at the wiki for the following (see https:// >>> svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/report >>> for the reports): >>> >>> 1) For your own tickets, make sure that they are up to date. If >>> reviewers are needed, please contact them and encourage them to >>> submit >>> their reviews. If revised text is needed, please update the text >>> and >>> if you would like early feedback, notify this list. >>> >>> 2) For items on which you are a reviewer (particularly MPI 2.1 >>> chapter >>> authors), please review the relevant tickets. When you are >>> reviewing >>> text, make sure that you are looking at the current MPI 2.1 >>> standard; >>> check page and line numbers as well as the context to ensure that >>> the >>> change is correct. >>> >>> 3) For other tickets, review them and raise any issues that you have >>> *now* so that we can start the discussion before our meeting. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Bill -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

Did you fill in your e-mail address on your Trac account? On Dec 5, 2008, at 3:37 PM, Rajeev Thakur wrote: > BTW, I am not receiving emails for comments made to my tickets by > reviewers > whom I have added in the CC field, i.e., the owner of the ticket is > not > getting an email. > > Rajeev > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-22 mailing list > mpi-22_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45)
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

Dear Erez, Thank you. I'm afraid I would need to have it explained in more detail why review may not include arguments on the substance. If something in the proposal makes one think that the proposed matter may be detrimental to the MPI standard and its implementations, I consider it one's duty to point this out. Following up on your reply: the segfault situation you described will make an MPI compliant program break. Thus, the implementation will have to keep the send buffer mapped into the sending process address space. This is a limitation on the MPI implementation that should be taken into account during the voting. Another possibility that has been pointed out earlier was that the proposed change disallows byte swap and other send buffer conversions to be done in place. At least one historical MPI implementation was doing this to a great avail. Who knows what is going to happen in the future? Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:18 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) I think that the idea is for the reviewers to check the text for any mistakes and compatibility with the existing text, rather than check for the validity of the proposal. The later as I recall is left for the MPI forum assembly. As for your question, I'm sure that you can answer it yourself. :) If the memory is still also mapped to the original process (as with shared memory) that everything is fine. If the memory is removed from the original process, than the app will get an access-violation fault. (if this system works on a page boundary, to take this action it needs to make sure that there are no other allocation on the same page) Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Supalov, Alexander Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:05 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) Hi, I'd like to review this proposal. Let's consider the following scenario: - In the MPI_Isend, MPI maps the send buffer into the address space of the receiving process. - In the matching MPI_Recv, the receiving process makes a copy of the mapped send buffer into the receive buffer. - Once the copy is complete, the send buffer is mapped back into the sender address space during the wait/test call. What will happen one tries to access the send buffer in between? Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 10:48 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal, plus the 3 chapter authors to sign-off on the text. The Chapter Authors for Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication Chapter 5: Collective Communication Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. Send Buffer Access: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/45 Thanks, .Erez --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45)
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

I think that the idea is for the reviewers to check the text for any mistakes and compatibility with the existing text, rather than check for the validity of the proposal. The later as I recall is left for the MPI forum assembly. As for your question, I'm sure that you can answer it yourself. :) If the memory is still also mapped to the original process (as with shared memory) that everything is fine. If the memory is removed from the original process, than the app will get an access-violation fault. (if this system works on a page boundary, to take this action it needs to make sure that there are no other allocation on the same page) Thanks, .Erez From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Supalov, Alexander Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 2:05 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) Hi, I'd like to review this proposal. Let's consider the following scenario: - In the MPI_Isend, MPI maps the send buffer into the address space of the receiving process. - In the matching MPI_Recv, the receiving process makes a copy of the mapped send buffer into the receive buffer. - Once the copy is complete, the send buffer is mapped back into the sender address space during the wait/test call. What will happen one tries to access the send buffer in between? Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 10:48 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal, plus the 3 chapter authors to sign-off on the text. The Chapter Authors for Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication Chapter 5: Collective Communication Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. Send Buffer Access: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/45 Thanks, .Erez --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45)
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

Hi, I'd like to review this proposal. Let's consider the following scenario: - In the MPI_Isend, MPI maps the send buffer into the address space of the receiving process. - In the matching MPI_Recv, the receiving process makes a copy of the mapped send buffer into the receive buffer. - Once the copy is complete, the send buffer is mapped back into the sender address space during the wait/test call. What will happen one tries to access the send buffer in between? Best regards. Alexander ________________________________ From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Erez Haba Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 10:48 PM To: MPI 2.2 Subject: [Mpi-22] please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45) This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal, plus the 3 chapter authors to sign-off on the text. The Chapter Authors for Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication Chapter 5: Collective Communication Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. Send Buffer Access: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/45 Thanks, .Erez --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Douglas Lusk, Peter Gleissner, Hannes Schwaderer Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr. VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. *

1 0

please review - add const keyword to the C bindings
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal. The proposal is short so don't be intimidated. :) plus I need the chapter authors to sign-off on the changes to the API (that the text is correct). Chapter Authors (it's less than a handful lines for each chapter) Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication Chapter 4: Datatypes Chapter 5: Collective Communication Chapter 6: Groups, Contexts, Communicators, and Caching Chapter 7: Process Topologies Chapter 8: MPI Environmental Management Chapter 9: The Info Object Chapter 10: Process Creation and Management Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication Chapter 13: I/O Chapter 15: Deprecated Functions Chapter 16: Language Bindings Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. Add const Keyword to the C bindings: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/46 Thanks, .Erez *

1 0

Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

Where can I find the list of chapter authors? -----Original Message----- From: mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:mpi-22-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of William Gropp Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:07 AM To: Bronis R. de Supinski; MPI 2.2 Subject: Re: [Mpi-22] MPI 2.2 Reminders As an immediate step, we can do the following: Authors of tickets that are ready for review should do the following: (a) add a comment to the ticket with the names of the reviewers (the relevant chapter author and 3 other volunteers) (b) contact the reviewers to remind them Having a separate, searchable field would be nice, but this would capture the data now. Bill On Dec 5, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > > Bill and Jeff: > > It will be really useful if the tickets listed reviewers. In the least > we need some way to map tickets to reviewers (I am thinking about > chapter > authors in particular), Could Jeff add a field (or fields) that the > owner is responsible for completing that indicates the reviewers? > > As it is I am really unclear over what I am supposed to review. I am > guessing there are at least one or two for my chapter... > > Bronis > > > On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, William Gropp wrote: > >> Our next MPI 2.2 discussion is in just over a week, and we have a lot >> to do. Please have a look at the wiki for the following (see https:// >> svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/report >> for the reports): >> >> 1) For your own tickets, make sure that they are up to date. If >> reviewers are needed, please contact them and encourage them to >> submit >> their reviews. If revised text is needed, please update the text and >> if you would like early feedback, notify this list. >> >> 2) For items on which you are a reviewer (particularly MPI 2.1 >> chapter >> authors), please review the relevant tickets. When you are reviewing >> text, make sure that you are looking at the current MPI 2.1 standard; >> check page and line numbers as well as the context to ensure that the >> change is correct. >> >> 3) For other tickets, review them and raise any issues that you have >> *now* so that we can start the discussion before our meeting. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Bill >> >> William Gropp >> Deputy Director for Research >> Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies >> Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science >> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-22 mailing list >> mpi-22_at_[hidden] >> http:// lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > mpi-22 mailing list > mpi-22_at_[hidden] > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22 William Gropp Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign _______________________________________________ mpi-22 mailing list mpi-22_at_[hidden] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-22

1 0

please review - Send Buffer Access (ticket #45)
by unknown＠example.com 05 Dec '08

05 Dec '08

This proposal has passed 1st voting and needs reviewers. We need 3 volunteers to sign-off on this proposal, plus the 3 chapter authors to sign-off on the text. The Chapter Authors for Chapter 3: Point-to-Point Communication Chapter 5: Collective Communication Chapter 11: One-Sided Communication Please add a comment to the ticket saying that you reviewed the proposal, or please send me your comments. Send Buffer Access: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/45 Thanks, .Erez *

1 0