Sec. 7.2.1 (gaspi_segment_alloc) reads:
After successful procedure completion, i. e. return value GASPI_SUCCESS, the
segment can be accessed locally. In case that there is a connection established to
a remote Gaspi process, it can also be used for passive communication between
the two Gaspi processes.
This sounds as if it cannot be used as the local segment in gaspi_wirte and gaspi_read. However, sec. 8.2.1 (gaspi_write) reads differently:
A valid gaspi_write communication request requires that the local and the
remote segment are allocated, that there is a connection between the local and
the remote Gaspi process and that the remote segment has been registered on
the local Gaspi process.
I guess the latter is intended. We should harmonize 7.2.1 accordingly.
To put this issue to an extreme: is it actually necessary to have local segments at all? Couldn't gaspi_write and the like just take a pointer to the local memory?
Sec. 7.2.1 (gaspi_segment_alloc) reads:
This sounds as if it cannot be used as the local segment in gaspi_wirte and gaspi_read. However, sec. 8.2.1 (gaspi_write) reads differently:
I guess the latter is intended. We should harmonize 7.2.1 accordingly.
To put this issue to an extreme: is it actually necessary to have local segments at all? Couldn't gaspi_write and the like just take a pointer to the local memory?