-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick O'Keefe Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:06 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Use of FORCE
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:28:34 -0400, Jim Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> In the future we are going to do the cancel early in the shutdown procedure so we may not ever run into this again. And I may not convince anyone here that this problem is worth reproducing. In other words, I may never get the needed dump. Are you suggesting I should not have opened a PMR in this case? <snip> As a developer, I'd rather know that the problem existed. At least with all the diagnostics you give me I could try to recreate the problem and hopefully produce a fix for it. [Trust me, every place where I've worked, you having to use "FORCE" was taken VERY seriously and such a problem would be viewed as a SEV1/CRITSIT waiting in the wings.] Let me ask this one question: Would the micro-code guys just blow it off if you shutdown an LPAR and it hung on an SCLP command that was out of sequence? And the only way out was a POR? There is a methodology or perspective problem with the "C" based developers (from where I sit). They still think they have memory leaks. I can't seem to catch any of that in a bucket we keep in the bottom of the processor. Later, Steve Thompson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
