26 Dec
2011
26 Dec
'11
11:21 p.m.
On 12/26/2011 11:15 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 10:49:55PM -0600, Pavan Balaji wrote: Right, Brian had some arguments why/how this would be either a non-scalable implementation (in memory and time) or a burden on the implementer. So we didn't want to enforce to have a good implementation of this (since our only use-case was solved otherwise).
Sure. I don't feel strongly about allowing exclusive locks right now. I just wanted to get a better understanding of the issue. But I do think that the lock_type argument should be retained, which is an orthogonal issue. -- Pavan -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji