October 2011 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_split_type reviews
by Pavan Balaji 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

Ok, sounds good. -- Pavan On 10/30/2011 05:09 PM, Graham, Richard L. wrote: > I agree with Bill. > > > > Sent with Good (www.good.com) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Gropp [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 05:52 PM Eastern Standard Time > To: Pavan Balaji > Cc: mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_split_type reviews > > That's my position. > Bill > > On Oct 30, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Pavan Balaji wrote: > >> >> Ok, so should the remaining chapter authors just ignore the "author >> sign-offs" on this ticket? >> >> -- Pavan >> >> On 10/30/2011 04:33 PM, William Gropp wrote: >>> At some point, we need to do this review, but this shouldn't >>> require a >>> full formal review like this (recall, some of these rules were >>> intended *only* for the MPI 2.x process, where we intended to keep >>> changes to a minimum. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Pavan Balaji wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> My understanding is that all chapter committees have to sign-off on >>>> the ticket, even if there is no direct text addition/deletion to >>>> their chapter. This is to ensure that the added/deleted text does >>>> not have any subtle implications for other chapters. Someone should >>>> correct me if I'm wrong here. >>>> >>>> -- Pavan >>>> >>>> On 10/30/2011 03:49 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I do not understand. Are you saying I have to verify your >>>>> statement that the ticket did not have any changes to >>>>> the chapters for which I am author? This requirement >>>>> seems officious and inefficient. >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Pavan Balaji wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I had just sent this email to Bill, but I remembered that all >>>>>> chapter >>>>>> committees need to sign-off on a ticket to make sure it doesn't >>>>>> affect >>>>>> their chapter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Chapter committees -- please review the following ticket for >>>>>> MPI_Comm_split_type: >>>>>> >>>>>> hxxps://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/287 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Pavan >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Pavan Balaji >>>>>> hxxp://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>>> hxxp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> hxxp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Pavan Balaji >>>> hxxp://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> hxxp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> William Gropp >>> Director, Parallel Computing Institute >>> 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-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> hxxp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> -- >> Pavan Balaji >> hxxp://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji > > William Gropp > Director, Parallel Computing Institute > 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-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > hxxp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_split_type reviews
by Graham, Richard L. 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

I agree with Bill. Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message----- From: William Gropp [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 05:52 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Pavan Balaji Cc: mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_split_type reviews That's my position. Bill On Oct 30, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Pavan Balaji wrote: > > Ok, so should the remaining chapter authors just ignore the "author > sign-offs" on this ticket? > > -- Pavan > > On 10/30/2011 04:33 PM, William Gropp wrote: >> At some point, we need to do this review, but this shouldn't >> require a >> full formal review like this (recall, some of these rules were >> intended *only* for the MPI 2.x process, where we intended to keep >> changes to a minimum. >> >> Bill >> >> On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Pavan Balaji wrote: >> >>> >>> My understanding is that all chapter committees have to sign-off on >>> the ticket, even if there is no direct text addition/deletion to >>> their chapter. This is to ensure that the added/deleted text does >>> not have any subtle implications for other chapters. Someone should >>> correct me if I'm wrong here. >>> >>> -- Pavan >>> >>> On 10/30/2011 03:49 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >>>> >>>> I do not understand. Are you saying I have to verify your >>>> statement that the ticket did not have any changes to >>>> the chapters for which I am author? This requirement >>>> seems officious and inefficient. >>>> >>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Pavan Balaji wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I had just sent this email to Bill, but I remembered that all >>>>> chapter >>>>> committees need to sign-off on a ticket to make sure it doesn't >>>>> affect >>>>> their chapter. >>>>> >>>>> Chapter committees -- please review the following ticket for >>>>> MPI_Comm_split_type: >>>>> >>>>> hxxps://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/287 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> -- Pavan >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Pavan Balaji >>>>> hxxp://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> hxxp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> hxxp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> -- >>> Pavan Balaji >>> hxxp://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> hxxp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> William Gropp >> Director, Parallel Computing Institute >> 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-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> hxxp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > -- > Pavan Balaji > hxxp://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji William Gropp Director, Parallel Computing Institute 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-forum mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org hxxp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_split_type reviews
by William Gropp 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

That's my position. Bill On Oct 30, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Pavan Balaji wrote: > > Ok, so should the remaining chapter authors just ignore the "author > sign-offs" on this ticket? > > -- Pavan > > On 10/30/2011 04:33 PM, William Gropp wrote: >> At some point, we need to do this review, but this shouldn't >> require a >> full formal review like this (recall, some of these rules were >> intended *only* for the MPI 2.x process, where we intended to keep >> changes to a minimum. >> >> Bill >> >> On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Pavan Balaji wrote: >> >>> >>> My understanding is that all chapter committees have to sign-off on >>> the ticket, even if there is no direct text addition/deletion to >>> their chapter. This is to ensure that the added/deleted text does >>> not have any subtle implications for other chapters. Someone should >>> correct me if I'm wrong here. >>> >>> -- Pavan >>> >>> On 10/30/2011 03:49 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >>>> >>>> I do not understand. Are you saying I have to verify your >>>> statement that the ticket did not have any changes to >>>> the chapters for which I am author? This requirement >>>> seems officious and inefficient. >>>> >>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Pavan Balaji wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I had just sent this email to Bill, but I remembered that all >>>>> chapter >>>>> committees need to sign-off on a ticket to make sure it doesn't >>>>> affect >>>>> their chapter. >>>>> >>>>> Chapter committees -- please review the following ticket for >>>>> MPI_Comm_split_type: >>>>> >>>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/287 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> -- Pavan >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Pavan Balaji >>>>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> -- >>> Pavan Balaji >>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> William Gropp >> Director, Parallel Computing Institute >> 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-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > -- > Pavan Balaji > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji William Gropp Director, Parallel Computing Institute Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_split_type reviews
by Pavan Balaji 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

Ok, so should the remaining chapter authors just ignore the "author sign-offs" on this ticket? -- Pavan On 10/30/2011 04:33 PM, William Gropp wrote: > At some point, we need to do this review, but this shouldn't require a > full formal review like this (recall, some of these rules were > intended *only* for the MPI 2.x process, where we intended to keep > changes to a minimum. > > Bill > > On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Pavan Balaji wrote: > >> >> My understanding is that all chapter committees have to sign-off on >> the ticket, even if there is no direct text addition/deletion to >> their chapter. This is to ensure that the added/deleted text does >> not have any subtle implications for other chapters. Someone should >> correct me if I'm wrong here. >> >> -- Pavan >> >> On 10/30/2011 03:49 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >>> >>> I do not understand. Are you saying I have to verify your >>> statement that the ticket did not have any changes to >>> the chapters for which I am author? This requirement >>> seems officious and inefficient. >>> >>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Pavan Balaji wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I had just sent this email to Bill, but I remembered that all >>>> chapter >>>> committees need to sign-off on a ticket to make sure it doesn't >>>> affect >>>> their chapter. >>>> >>>> Chapter committees -- please review the following ticket for >>>> MPI_Comm_split_type: >>>> >>>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/287 >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> -- Pavan >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Pavan Balaji >>>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> -- >> Pavan Balaji >> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > William Gropp > Director, Parallel Computing Institute > 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-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_split_type reviews
by William Gropp 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

At some point, we need to do this review, but this shouldn't require a full formal review like this (recall, some of these rules were intended *only* for the MPI 2.x process, where we intended to keep changes to a minimum. Bill On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Pavan Balaji wrote: > > My understanding is that all chapter committees have to sign-off on > the ticket, even if there is no direct text addition/deletion to > their chapter. This is to ensure that the added/deleted text does > not have any subtle implications for other chapters. Someone should > correct me if I'm wrong here. > > -- Pavan > > On 10/30/2011 03:49 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: >> >> I do not understand. Are you saying I have to verify your >> statement that the ticket did not have any changes to >> the chapters for which I am author? This requirement >> seems officious and inefficient. >> >> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Pavan Balaji wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I had just sent this email to Bill, but I remembered that all >>> chapter >>> committees need to sign-off on a ticket to make sure it doesn't >>> affect >>> their chapter. >>> >>> Chapter committees -- please review the following ticket for >>> MPI_Comm_split_type: >>> >>> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/287 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- Pavan >>> >>> -- >>> Pavan Balaji >>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > -- > Pavan Balaji > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum William Gropp Director, Parallel Computing Institute Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_split_type reviews
by Pavan Balaji 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

My understanding is that all chapter committees have to sign-off on the ticket, even if there is no direct text addition/deletion to their chapter. This is to ensure that the added/deleted text does not have any subtle implications for other chapters. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong here. -- Pavan On 10/30/2011 03:49 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote: > > I do not understand. Are you saying I have to verify your > statement that the ticket did not have any changes to > the chapters for which I am author? This requirement > seems officious and inefficient. > > On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Pavan Balaji wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I had just sent this email to Bill, but I remembered that all chapter >> committees need to sign-off on a ticket to make sure it doesn't affect >> their chapter. >> >> Chapter committees -- please review the following ticket for >> MPI_Comm_split_type: >> >> https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/287 >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- Pavan >> >> -- >> Pavan Balaji >> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] MPI_Comm_split_type reviews
by Bronis R. de Supinski 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

I do not understand. Are you saying I have to verify your statement that the ticket did not have any changes to the chapters for which I am author? This requirement seems officious and inefficient. On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Pavan Balaji wrote: > Hi all, > > I had just sent this email to Bill, but I remembered that all chapter > committees need to sign-off on a ticket to make sure it doesn't affect > their chapter. > > Chapter committees -- please review the following ticket for > MPI_Comm_split_type: > > https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/287 > > Thanks, > > -- Pavan > > -- > Pavan Balaji > http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >

1 0

MPI_Comm_split_type reviews
by Pavan Balaji 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

Hi all, I had just sent this email to Bill, but I remembered that all chapter committees need to sign-off on a ticket to make sure it doesn't affect their chapter. Chapter committees -- please review the following ticket for MPI_Comm_split_type: https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/287 Thanks, -- Pavan -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0

Implementation of MPI_GET_LIBRARY_VERSION
by Jeff Squyres 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/ticket/204#comment:17 A first implementation of MPI_Get_library_version is available in a mercurial repository here: https://bitbucket.org/jsquyres/mpi3-lib-version-ticket204 Available in distribution tarball form here: http://www.open-mpi.org/~jsquyres/mpi3-ticket-204 3 example programs are included showing the use of MPI_GET_LIBRARY_VERSION: * examples/hello_c.c * examples/hello_f77.f * examples/hello_f90.f90 Open MPI's final/release library version string may not be the same format as what is available above. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

MPI_Comm_split_type implementation
by Pavan Balaji 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

All, An implementation of the MPI_Comm_split_type function is now publicly available in MPICH2 here: http://www.mcs.anl.gov/research/projects/mpich2/downloads/tarballs/nightly/… (please use r9071 or higher). The latest tarball will be generated in a few minutes. Thanks, -- Pavan -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

1 0