​the wording seems OK to me Anthony Skjellum, PhD Affiliate Faculty, Computer Science and Software Engineering at Auburn University 205-807-4968 (cell) Preferred e-mails for me are [email protected] or [email protected] ________________________________ From: mpiwg-persistence <[email protected]> on behalf of HOLMES Daniel <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:18 AM To: MPI WG Persistence working Group Cc: Martin Schulz; Anthony Skjellum Subject: Re: [mpiwg-persistence] [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29) Hi all, I’ve just pushed this text change as is to the Persistence WG github - so it is now included on our pull request. Do we wish to word-smith the exact phraseology at all? I’m happy with it as is, but I can easily make a wording change if we decide that’s needed or wanted. Once we have WG sign-off on the wording, I’ll rebuild the PDF. Cheers, Dan. On 30 Nov 2017, at 01:43, Anthony Skjellum <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ​Martin, OK, thank you. That makes perfect sense.-Tony Anthony Skjellum, PhD Affiliate Faculty, Computer Science and Software Engineering at Auburn University 205-807-4968 (cell) Preferred e-mails for me are [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> or [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ________________________________ From: mpiwg-persistence <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Martin Schulz <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 5:04 PM To: Anthony Skjellum Cc: MPI WG Persistence working Group Subject: Re: [mpiwg-persistence] [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29) Hi Tony, On 29. Nov 2017, at 23:58, Anthony Skjellum <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Can this be a "ticket 0" change? No, I think this is clearly more than a ticket 0 change, but as Dan suggested, it should pass the no/no vote test. Martin On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Martin Schulz <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>wrote: Hi Dan, all, Just my personal view: the that’s how I always interpreted the statement anyway, but I can see how this could be misinterpreted. Hence, adding the clarification is IMHO a good move. Just my 2c, Martin On 29. Nov 2017, at 11:07, HOLMES Daniel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Persistence WG members, We have a suggested change to the wording of the MPI Standard text that we will propose to the MPI Forum next week regarding persistent collective operations. Once initialized, persistent collective operations can be started in any order independently of initialization order +and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator Most of this sentence already appears in our proposed text - the suggestion is to add the line beginning with “+”. I think this is a good suggestion - we should make this point absolutely clear. We should word-smith the exact phrase (e.g. during the meeting later today?) and then include it in our formal reading next week by holding a “no-no” vote. Cheers, Dan. Begin forwarded message: From: KAWASHIMA Takahiro <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [mpi-forum/mpi-standard] Persistent collectives 2017 (#29) Date: 29 November 2017 at 06:09:20 GMT To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Dan Holmes <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Mention <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: mpi-forum/mpi-standard <reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755@reply.github.com<mailto:reply+00c7fc4ac57b95d8d1ec9f0842808776a6bf83a41aa2b15e92cf000000011636110f92a169ce0dd58755@reply.github.com>> @dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk<https://github.com/dholmes-epcc-ed-ac-uk>, With the existing text, I think many people can understand that it is saying (at least) "requests can be started using MPI_START or MPI_STARTALL in any order independently of initialization order", because of analogy to the point-to-point communication. So I think your suggested text is unnecessary. But some people may not understand that it is also saying "the order of starting requests can differ among ranks in the communicator", because (1) the matching rule for persistent collective operations is different from the matching rule for point-to-point communication so that analogy to the point-to-point communication is not applied and (2) the order of nonblocking collective calls must be same among ranks in the communicator. How about the sentence below? I'm not good at English. Please correct it if it is not good. Once initialized, persistent collective operations can be started in any order independently of initialization order and the order can differ among ranks in the communicator If anyone else thinks the existing text is sufficient, I won't request the change. Probably my English reading skill is low. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/mpi-forum/mpi-standard/pull/29#issuecomment-347762876>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMf8SiG0KfwGmYxNhaFoTBv_JDwibZPnks5s7PUPgaJpZM4Npoc2>. The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ mpiwg-persistence mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence _______________________________________________ mpiwg-persistence mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence -- Anthony Skjellum, PhD [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cell: +1-205-807-4968 _______________________________________________ mpiwg-persistence mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/mpiwg-persistence