Steve: You should be able to dial in via simple telephone if someone shares the info. Jeff On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Steven Oyanagi <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,

Sorry, but I don’t think I am going to be able to be on the call today. Cray has internal network problems, but the system is both phones and internet connection. I had to scramble to find a connection to send this message …. - Steve

-----Original Message----- From: Steve Oyanagi <[email protected]> Date: Monday, February 8, 2016 at 2:42 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Telecon today and extra meeting tomorrow (Tue 2/8 10:00 CST)

...

Hi,

Sorry to drop off the call suddenly, but I had to leave for another meeting and didn’t want to interrupt the current discussion.

I am planning on attending the extra meeting tomorrow (Tuesday 2/8, 10:00 CST - for an hour?). Please let me know how to connect to the meeting once it is determined.

I will attempt to be ready to discuss pages 200-300 (I’m after Dan) tomorrow, but may not be ready. Listening to Pavan today I think I missed some things, I want to go back and check.

Thanks, - Steve

-----Original Message----- From: mpiwg-hybridpm <[email protected]> on behalf of Pavan Balaji <[email protected]> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 8:25 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mpiwg-hybridpm] Clarification of word 'process'

...

I've pushed the changes for pages 1-100 as well (plus the front matter before page 1). I have a bunch of notes on my changes that I'd like to discuss on the call tomorrow.

-- Pavan

...

On Feb 5, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Daniel Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi all,

I have just pushed a new branch into our mpiwg-hybrid git repo called "hybrid-process-clarification". It contains one commit: "Clarification of word 'process', pages 101-200". I am anticipating that each person's changes can be recorded as a commit with a similar message to aid identification.

There are a few instances that need discussion - specifically, when the new MPI_AINT arithmetic functions are talking about the scope of validity for the resulting addresses should that be OS process or MPI process?

Cheers, Dan.

-- Dan Holmes Applications Consultant in HPC Research EPCC, The University of Edinburgh James Clerk Maxwell Building The Kings Buildings Peter Guthrie Tait Road Edinburgh EH9 3FD T: +44(0)131 651 3465 E: [email protected]

*Please consider the environment before printing this email.*

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

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

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

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

-- Jeff Hammond [email protected] http://jeffhammond.github.io/