Alan Altmark wrote:
On Thursday, 10/13/2005 at 09:11 ZE8, John Summerfied
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But why lock? CP can handle multiple parralel diag8
As I recall someone asserted there's a problem getting the proper cp
feedback at present. VM return codes don't map to *x return codes, so
another action is needed to get the VM return code and publish it some
place a script can use it.
Without locking, this will fail from time to time.
All output data areas and registers must be stashed in instance-specific
memory such as that associated with a file descriptor. But this is normal
coding practice in file/network drivers. Implicit locks would be
appropriate for those diagnose functions that are stateful. E.g. you
can't have two processes using diag 14 at the same time. But there's no
reason they can't both issue diag 210 (for example).
Much earlier in this thread (which seems to have changed its subject
from time to time), folk were talking about using this in scripts, and
examples using /bin/sh were given.
For this purpose, serialisation and paralellisation by the driver are
inadequate. The state must be preserved for use by the script.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
