Hi Wei-keng,<br><br>That's the answer that I thought I would get, and no I guess there is no point in having one. Is there a demonstrable performance benefit of this non-blocking interface that would make it worth taking on the additional memory management that it will require?<br>
<br>Jim<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Wei-keng Liao <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wkliao@ece.northwestern.edu">wkliao@ece.northwestern.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi, Jim,<br>
<br>
The "non-blocking" APIs in pnetcdf are not truly asynchronous.<br>
They actually defer the I/O requests till ncmpi_wait_all.<br>
So, if there is a corresponding test call and it is called<br>
in between the post of nonblocking and wait, it will simply<br>
return false, indicating not yet complete.<br>
<br>
Given that, would you still like to see a test API available<br>
in pnetcdf? (That will not be too hard to add one.)<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Wei-keng<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Feb 20, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jim Edwards wrote:<br>
<br>
> I am working on an async interface using pnetcdf and wondering why there is no analog to mpi_test in the API?<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Jim Edwards<br>
><br>
> CESM Software Engineering Group<br>
> National Center for Atmospheric Research<br>
> Boulder, CO<br>
> <a href="tel:303-497-1842" value="+13034971842">303-497-1842</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><pre>Jim Edwards<br><br><br></pre><br>