Re: Clarification of close semantics

Linda Stanberry (linda@anduin.ocf.llnl.gov)
Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:40:25 -0800 (PST)

> > ... it is erroneous for a collective call to be issued
> > without synchronizing (making sure no other op is pending).
>
> No. It might be helpful to know what you read that gave
> you this impression, so we can fix it if possible.
>

This is due to a bungled wording of my understanding of consistency semantics
for collective calls. I can only make this worse by trying to further
illustrate my understanding :-)

**** HOWEVER ****

fortunately for me, both Bills answered the real question on MPI_CLOSE,
which is that the restrictions on pending ops for close apply to the
process issuing the close. (Whew!)

Thanks!

Linda