I don't think we talked about it at all - the single lock restriction was simply the consequence of needing a way to define the scope of passive target operations and support non-cache-coherent systems (don't forget that "lock" isn't a "lock" - its a "begin access epoch"). Bill On May 25, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Torsten Hoefler wrote:

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:04:41PM -0600, Underwood, Keith D wrote:

...

Lockall/unlockall was definitely on the list at the last meeting. There wasn't consensus on many things, but there was on that one ;-) Ok, I added it. See wiki.

We should still discuss this further. It seems like we're adding much functionality and I'm not 100% sure if this is all compatible with the MPI-2.0 design. Does anybody know the rationale for the one-lock restriction in MPI-2?

All the Best, Torsten

-- bash$ :(){ :|:&};: --------------------- http://www.unixer.de/ ----- Torsten Hoefler | Research Associate Blue Waters Directorate | University of Illinois 1205 W Clark Street | Urbana, IL, 61801 NCSA Building | +01 (217) 244-7736 _______________________________________________ mpi3-rma mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma

William Gropp Deputy Director for Research Institute for Advanced Computing Applications and Technologies Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign