Hi All,

So after laying out these choices, I see 3 options for the nbcio ticket:

1) Keep it the way it is, and adding an advise to users saying that intermixing nonblocking collective shared fp operation and independent shared fp operations is undefined.

2) Make the previous case illegal.

3) remove the nonblocking ordered operations from this ticket (to be handled in a separate ticket)

keep in mind, as mentioned previously, we can't provide a prototype implementation for those routines. From our side, if the forum accepts only a pseudo code implementation for those routines, we  would like to proceed with option 1, otherwise we would go with option 3.

Any other opinions?

Thanks,
Mohamad

On 2/6/2012 1:19 PM, Dries Kimpe wrote: 
Yes, that's an accurate summary.

  Dries

* Mohamad Chaarawi <chaarawi@hdfgroup.org> [2012-02-06 10:48:50]:


Hi Dries,


      

        
I'm jumping late on this thread, but to summarize so far (and correct me 
if I made a mistake understanding), we have two cases:


      

      

      

        
1) two non-blocking collective shared FP operations:


      

      

      

        
	MPI_File_iread_ordered
	MPI_File_iread_ordered


      

      

      

        
This will be ordered in the sense that the user will see that the first 
operations will occur before the second one.


      

      

      

        
2) mixed collective and independent


      

      

      

        
         MPI_File_iread_ordered
	MPI_File_read_shared


      

      

      

        
Where the choices that you mentioned apply, right?


      

      

      

        
  * make that case illegal
  * make it undefined


      

      

      

        
As you mentioned that since the split collectives leave it as undefined, 
makes me lean more towards keeping it that way.


      

      

      

        
Thanks,
Mohamad


      

      




      

        
On 02/02/2012 04:22 PM, Dries Kimpe wrote:


        

          
There might be some use in 'undefined ordering' as opposed to 'illegal'
for those application that don't care about the ordering.


        

      

      

      

        

          
Applications that do rely on the ordering can easily use the existing MPI
functions to enforce ordering.


        

      

      

      

        

          
So, the way I see it: 2 choices:
1) Say order is undefined in the standard (basically there's a precedent
with the split collective versions).
2) Say it is illegal. The user can duplicate the file handle and easily
implement their own version of what they need.


        

      

      

      

        

          
(2) is easier for the implementor.


        

      

      




      

        
_______________________________________________
MPI3-IO mailing list
MPI3-IO@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io


      

      

      

      

      

      
_______________________________________________
MPI3-IO mailing list
MPI3-IO@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-io