Keith, The argument was against making MPI_Put more restrictive by requiring atomicity, since MPI_Accumulate with REPLACE already provides it. So, I think ordering is still important in this case. With respect to ordering, again, I think the argument was against *only* ordered communication. I don't think there was opposition to providing both ordered and unordered. -- Pavan -- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji ----- "Keith D Underwood" <[email protected]> wrote:

Well, when Jeff and Bill successfully argued against a definition for atomicity of access for conflicting accesses beyond "undefined", we lost direct support for the UPC memory model. After that, I no longer cared about ordering and Jeff was still arguing vehemently against ordering, so my understanding was that we had dropped ordering. I am not sure why we would support ordering without an access granularity definition.

Keith

----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: MPI 3.0 Remote Memory Access working group <[email protected]> Cc: Brad Chamberlain <[email protected]> Sent: Sat May 29 22:38:03 2010 Subject: Re: [Mpi3-rma] mpi3-rma post from [email protected] requires approval

On 05/29/2010 06:24 AM, Underwood, Keith D wrote:

...

1) Ordering: a) Ordered from a given source to a given address on a given target (unordered otherwise), or b) completely unordered

My understanding was that we were providing both 1a and 1b. Or rather,

MPI-2 already gives 1b, and we are proposing 1a together with it (not

instead of it).

-- Pavan

-- Pavan Balaji http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji _______________________________________________ mpi3-rma mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma

_______________________________________________ mpi3-rma mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi3-rma