For the bigger one, yes, this is much harder and absolutely not ticket-0. no_locks is particularly tricky, because it applies to the window, not the window object, and hence is defined as local. Bill On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Balaji, Pavan <[email protected]> wrote:

There are two questions below. The formatting part (whether to use [SAME]) is a smaller issue. The bigger issue is whether we want to say that all the remaining info keys no_locks, etc., should be the same on all processes.

I want to say that, but: (1) need the chapter committee consensus, and (2) I'm not sure it's a ticket-0 change, though we did make that change for same_size as ticket-0.

-- Pavan

...

On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:56 PM, William Gropp <[email protected]> wrote:

That’s an excellent idea - we should use the same language throughout the standard, and the I/O chapter is probably the best source.

Bill

On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Balaji, Pavan <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Nathan suggested to use the I/O chapter format where info keys are annotated with "[SAME]" to indicate that all processes must provide the same info key. That is probably a ticket-0 change. We need to first agree on whether we want to do this.

-- Pavan

...

On Mar 4, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Balaji, Pavan <[email protected]> wrote:

Folks at Forum complained about the addition to the "same_size" info key which added the following phrase:

"and that all processes have provided this info key with the same value"

(this change was not a part of any ticket, and was made by the chapter committee)

There were two concerns:

1. This is a backward incompatible change (as in, applications were not required to give the same value earlier), though folks understood why this is needed. They were OK as long as we add a Errata/Changelog item saying so.

2. The property that all processes should give the same info key was true for other keys in that section as well (no_locks, accumulate_ordering, accumulate_ops). So the same sentence should be added to them as well.

The Forum wants to see a draft of these changes. I'd like to propose adding the same phrase ("and that all processes have provided this info key with the same value") to the other info keys as well. What do folks think? Is this something that we agree on (technically, it is possible to have different info keys in the job, but it probably doesn't make much sense).

Thoughts?

-- Pavan

-- Pavan Balaji ✉️ http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

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

-- Pavan Balaji ✉️ http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

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

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

-- Pavan Balaji ✉️ http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~balaji

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