Should PetscObjectName be collective?

[Jed Brown]

Since it is not collective, the names can get out of sync, even with
"reasonable" usage.  Consider a case where rank 0 views a serial Vec
(say with the Matlab viewer), and then a parallel Vec (e.g. to
HDF5). The result would either be deadlock (with collective IO) or a
file where Vec_0 contains all but rank 0's part, and Vec_1 contains only
rank 0's part (and an HDF5 error once another vector is viewed because
the Vec_1 dataspace cannot be created if it already exists).

Is it reasonable to make PetscObjectName (and necessary dependents)
collective where it performs this?

  MPI_Allreduce(MPI_IN_PLACE,&counter,1,MPI_INT,MPI_MAX,obj->comm);


Jed

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20091116/43924e94/attachment.sig>