[ofiwg] Proposal for enhancement to support additional Persistent Memory use cases (ofiwg/libfabric#5874)

[Grun, Paul]

I plan to put this on the agenda for next week's OFIWG meeting.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ofiwg <ofiwg-bounces at lists.openfabrics.org> On Behalf Of Hefty, Sean
> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 8:45 AM
> To: Swaro, James E <james.swaro at hpe.com>; Douglas, Chet R
> <chet.r.douglas at intel.com>; Rupert Dance - SFI <rsdance at soft-forge.com>;
> ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
> Subject: Re: [ofiwg] Proposal for enhancement to support additional Persistent
> Memory use cases (ofiwg/libfabric#5874)
> 
> > > Commit is not a valid term.
> >
> > What 'commit' is named doesn't matter much to me. As long as we agree
> > on the functionality of the feature, I'm not particularly picky about
> > names. I think from the slides I've seen, 'flush' in the slides is
> > equivalent to the 'commit' I've suggested here.
> 
> Agreed - commit is consistent and aligns with the libfabric completion levels.
> The API definition will eventually be named based on the semantic that is
> exposed to the application, and what types of transfers it applies to.
> 
> > > Is this already in the wild?  If not we shouldn’t release it without
> > > further
> > consideration.
> >
> > This is a proposal for a modification to libfabric. This is not in
> > master, this is simply a proposal.
> 
> James email *is* the further discussion and consideration, aimed at expanding
> the existing libfabric solution.
> 
> - Sean
> _______________________________________________
> ofiwg mailing list
> ofiwg at lists.openfabrics.org
> INVALID URI REMOVED
> 3A__lists.openfabrics.org_mailman_listinfo_ofiwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=C5b8zRQO1
> miGmBeVZ2LFWg&r=Gu85MpS7ImGmwh9TaJU-
> rXwAoPzObckoDNIQpAj4MDo&m=QDCMjRi_dBCKW8bQjOhqcv0o0_tvg2dR-
> Bv41t5O5cQ&s=lhbpUZ6u_j-mFXo_NacQYiVFaHgsPegi1ZHmLjrGw8s&e=