You are right, thanks!
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 07:22, Dominik Szczerba <dominik at itis.ethz.ch> > wrote: >> >> Would not MatConvert do the same, but easier? > > No, how would MatConvert() know on which communicator to put the result? > What would all the other processes get? > MatGetSubMatrices() is the right amount of explicit about these things.
