Looking an that, i'm assuming it assigns a sequential number to an LPAR within a connected group of z processors. I'm assuming when you connect two processors already up it will reassign the sequence number? .
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:33 PM Paul Gilmartin <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 11:39:06 -0500, Salva Carrasco wrote: > > >Peter, from my Sysplexex (two CPC, two Sysplexes): > > > >Sysplex 1: > >LPAR1 - CPC 1 - 00D96E2471DF1F558800000008040001 > >LPAR2 - CPC 1 - 00D96E2543F30EBBA200000008040003 > >LPAR1 - CPC 2 - 00D96E24D3FB32884200000008040002 > >LPAR2 - CPC 2 - 00D96E25612D8B384600000008000004 > > ... > So uniqueness is guaranteed. Is monotonicity likewise guaranteed? > > Suppose a task on LPAR1 CPC 2 does STCKE, then a task on LPAR 1 CPC 1 > does STCKE so soon afterward that bits 0-111 are identical. The value > stored first appears greater because of bits 112-127. But is there any > sequence of instructions that could detect that prochronism? > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
