When one uses DESBUF, it should be preceeded by CONWAIT as DESBUF also clears CMS' console output buffer. In my young years, I was debugging an EXEC1 exec with an &TRACE ALL, and I didn't see all executed lines. I was almost convinced that I found a bug in EXEC1 as in the console trace I saw it jump from exec line xxx to yyy without an &GOTO to explain the jump... But, you guessed it: at line yyy-1 there was a DESBUF... In my experience, DESBUF is no longer of any use since the arrival of DROPBUF, and that was together with EXEC2, maybe in VM/SP Rel 2. So, in a bigger WAKEUP based server, where one isn't sure some other called exec leaves stacked lines behind, it might be better to code 'DROPBUF' 'WAKEUP .....' with or without CONS, it wouldn't matter anymore.
2009/9/14 Colleen Brown <brown...@us.ibm.com> > > I really think Kris's first response about the CONS option is the correct > one. You don't want to use this option unless you have some specific need. > WAKEUP will wake and give a rc 6 when you hit enter on the console without > this option. I have done traces before and 'watched' the rc 6 occur because > of something being put temporarily on the stack by CMS. In those cases > WAKEUP is too efficient and catches what you don't want caught. > Another quirky thing with WAKEUP is using DESBUF without CONWAIT. DROPBUF > works much better with WAKEUP and isn't as finicky about whether or not > CONWAIT is used. > (It has been too long since I chased some of these things. Memory fades > ...) > > Colleen M Brown > IBM z/VM and Related Products Development and Service > > > *Kris Buelens <kris.buel...@gmail.com>* > Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> > > 09/14/2009 04:03 PM > Please respond to > The IBM z/VM Operating System <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> > > To > IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc > Subject > Re: Problem that is a blast from the past... > > > > > As far as I know: CP FOR can only be used to execute CP commands on behalf > of the target user, it does not generate console interrupts as opposed to CP > SEND. > > 2009/9/14 Mike Walter <*mike.wal...@hewitt.com* <mike.wal...@hewitt.com>> > Is there any chance of some other SVM issuing a 'CP SEND' or 'CP FOR' > command to the server running WAKEUP and experiencing the unexpected > interrupt? > > Of course, in such a case of one disconnected SVM waking another up in > that manner, one might expect to hear the faint strains of "Dueling > Banjos" playing softly in the background! ;-) > > Mike Walter > Hewitt Associates > The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. > > > > > > -- > Kris Buelens, > IBM Belgium, VM customer support > -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
