On May 18, 2014, at 2:35 AM, Martin Schulz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Kathryn, all,

A few comments: - "Adhere to the same definition from the MPI implementation.” - not sure what we meant with this anymore. Perhaps we should just drop this part.

What I meant by that is that each MPI implementation will create a definition for each cvar/pvar/etc. The implementation must adhere to that same definition in all connected processes. I.e., it can't change the definition of exactly what that variable is in different processes (e.g., bytes_in = bytes received from TCP in one process, but bytes received across shared memory in another process).

- "OUT index values” is not correct, since index values are IN parameters to the get_info calls. Perhaps just drop OUT?

Good catch; missed that. Yes, this whole clause can go.

- The mandate of equal OUT/INPUT values is also not quite right - for the strings, it’s OK to return substrings of the size argument is too small. I know that’s a technicality, but I am not sure if this causes problems later down the road.

Mmm. Good point. So the current text is: * Return the same INOUT and OUT values from the relevant MPI_T_*_GET_INFO function. (I took the liberty of dropping the index value clause) I notice that we actually return 3 kinds of things from GET_INFO functions: integers/enums, strings, and MPI handles (i.e., MPI_Datatype). So how about this: * Return the same INOUT and OUT integer and enum values from the relevant MPI_T_*_GET_INFO function. * If sufficiently long enough string length IN parameters are supplied, return the same string OUT parameters from the relevant MPI_T_*_GET_INFO function. * Return a handle to an equivalent MPI object from the relevant MPI_T_*_GET_INFO function. -- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/