Sorry, John. My question was unclear. It was referring to your earlier
remarks above:
Thinking about it a bit more, given what Mr. Relson
said about RTM, doing this _should_ work even if the initiator
terminates
abnormally since RTM should clean up the ENQs during EOM processing.
Are you saying that RTM should clean up the ENQ even without modifying the
SWA with information for the DD, as you
suggested to do earlier?
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:42 PM, John McKown <john.archie.mck...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Steff Gladstone <
> steff.gladst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Even without modifying the SWA with information for the DD, as you
> > suggested earlier?
> >
>
> Yes, you can do the directed ENQ yourself without modifying the SWA.
> Which, by the by, I _mentioned_, not _suggested_. At least, I didn't mean
> for it to be a suggestions. It's the fly with a shotgun
> approach. The main problem with the directed ENQ to the initiator TCB is
> still "how to get the DEQ done at end of job?". That is the "sticking"
> point in this whole thing.
>
> --
> If you sent twitter messages while exploring, are you on a textpedition?
>
> He's about as useful as a wax frying pan.
>
> 10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone
>
> Maranatha! <><
> John McKown
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
