Dear Josh, Thank you. A couple of questions if you permit: 1. Did anyone from the Collective WG look into this proposal? 2. How many simultaneous outstanding spawns are allowed on a communicator? 3. You use "I" right after the "MPI_", thus creating "MPI_ICOMM_*" names. Maybe it's better to say "MPI_COMM_I*" where appropriate? 4. What, apart from symmetry, motivates introduction of the MPI_ICOMM_JOIN? Best regards. Alexander -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joshua Hursey Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 1:06 PM To: MPI 3.0 Fault Tolerance and Dynamic Process Control working Group Subject: Re: [Mpi3-ft] Con Call I have updated the wiki page for "Nonblocking Process Creation and Management Operations" per our meeting today. https://svn.mpi-forum.org/trac/mpi-forum-web/wiki/Async-proc-mgmt -- Josh On Feb 16, 2010, at 9:16 PM, Graham, Richard L. wrote:

Reminder that we will have a con-call tomorrow, Wed 2/17/2010, at 12 noon EST.

Rich

_______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft

_______________________________________________ mpi3-ft mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-ft --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.