"CP has always assumed" That's true in the VM/XA line-of-code. In VM/SP, CP did it right: VM READ stayed VM READ.
2010/3/5 Alan Altmark <alan_altm...@us.ibm.com> > On Wednesday, 03/03/2010 at 03:53 EST, Kris Buelens > <kris.buel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The cause is what in my eyes is a very old bug, it exists since the > VM/XA days; > > VM/SP had it right: > > in the VM/XA family, when a disconnected user, without a secondary > user, > > causes a VM READ, it is translated into a CP READ > > With SECONDARY user one can correct the problem: SEND a BEGIN command > > With OBSERVER one is stuck: one can send a BEGIN, but the following VM > READ is > > again translated in CP READ. If that could be fixed... Or am I > dreaming too > > much > > Indeed. CP has always assumed that a disconnected user without a SECUSER > cannot possibly get a response to a VM READ. So, he changes the VM READ > to CP READ and stops the virtual machine. (I speculate that it was simply > a convenient shortcut to trigger the 15-minute timebomb.) > > With class C SEND, the above assumption is no longer true and we begin to > detect a disturbance in the Force. > > Alan Altmark > z/VM Development > IBM Endicott > -- Kris Buelens, IBM Belgium, VM customer support
