[ofiwg] completion flags as actually defined by OFI
sean.hefty at intel.com
Tue Apr 14 12:27:55 PDT 2015
> Okay, but reading the docs you provided, I can't understand what the
> requirement is.
I copied the documentation from the man page. It simply attempts to describe the behavior that an app can expect.
> > The point of my post wasn't even about whether these 3 flags were
> > desirable. It was whether a 4th flag
> > (FI_DATA_VISIBLE_AT_REMOTE_SIDE_BUT_NOT_YET_IN_FINAL_DESTINATION_BUFFER)
> > was needed.
> You mean, the WR is guarenteed to complete on the peer, but the peer
> may not have seen it yet?
> I think that is very useful, and should replace FI_TRANSMIT_COMPLETE.
The completion semantic being proposed did not make any claim about whether the operation was guaranteed to complete on the peer. Based on the proposal, it seems to allow for the possibility that the operation could actually fail.
I can adjust the definition of FI_TRANSMIT_COMPLETE to indicate that the operation is guaranteed to complete at the peer under normal operation. I believe the providers support this guarantee.
More information about the ofiwg