On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:46:32 -0600, Peter Ten Eyck wrote: >It was mentioned in this thread that GRS could have been modified >to change the scope of the enqueue on the LPAR that the dataset >was not being used on by making it local. Therefore no longer >considered in use by GRS. I did not try this, but wonder if this was >done for a dataset that was already enqueued if this would work... >thoughts?
No. According to "Changing the RNL" in "MVS Planning: Global Resource Serialization", "If a job currently holds one or more of the affected resources, the change is delayed until that job frees any affected resources." Otherwise, you could have a confused state. A job in CPU A issues an ENQ on resource X with SCOPE=SYSTEMS (plural). Both CPU A and CPU B have resource X as enqueued. Now, if CPU A were to change the exclusion list to include resource X, when CPU A issues the DEQ, it behave as if it was SCOPE=SYSTEM (singular) and would not propagate the DEQ to CPU B, and the resource would still appear to be held there. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
