On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
> At 12:31 -0500 on 12/23/2010, Tony Harminc wrote about Re: X-memory POST
> question:
>
> On 23 December 2010 09:43, Binyamin Dissen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 08:30
At 12:31 -0500 on 12/23/2010, Tony Harminc wrote about Re: X-memory
POST question:
On 23 December 2010 09:43, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 08:30:25 -0500 Peter Relson wrote:
[...]
:>This goes to why, in many cases, XM Post is not safe,
[...]
Are you implying that
> :>The "quick post" approach of using CS to set the post bit of a
not-waiting
> :>ECB is a fully valid, documented approach.
>
> :>Of course it is extremely important to do it using the right key and
to
> :>have some reason to believe that the storage you are trying to update
has
> :>not be
On 23 December 2010 09:43, Binyamin Dissen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 08:30:25 -0500 Peter Relson wrote:
[...]
> :>This goes to why, in many cases, XM Post is not safe,
[...]
> Are you implying that one should open an APAR against XM POST as an integrity
> exposure?
It's hard to see how a ser
In
,
on 12/23/2010
at 08:30 AM, Peter Relson said:
>Of course it is extremely important to do it using the right key and
>to have some reason to believe that the storage you are trying to
>update has not been freed (and potentially re-obtained by a
>different job)
Is there an option in XM P
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 08:30:25 -0500 Peter Relson wrote:
:>The "quick post" approach of using CS to set the post bit of a not-waiting
:>ECB is a fully valid, documented approach.
:>Of course it is extremely important to do it using the right key and to
:>have some reason to believe that the stor
The "quick post" approach of using CS to set the post bit of a not-waiting
ECB is a fully valid, documented approach.
Of course it is extremely important to do it using the right key and to
have some reason to believe that the storage you are trying to update has
not been freed (and potentially
On 12/21/2010 12:31 AM, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
I assume that this is safe since you can not stop being the
running task between the test and your updating the ECB (and
there is not another running thread/task on another engine/cpu
which could be dispatching Address Space A). The use of CS is
hal9...@panix.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) writes:
> I assume that this is safe since you can not stop being the running
> task between the test and your updating the ECB (and there is not
compare & swap was invented by charlie at the science center when
he was working on fine-grain locking for cp67
In , on 12/21/2010
at 12:31 AM, "Robert A. Rosenberg" said:
>I assume that this is safe since you can not stop being the running
>task between the test and your updating the ECB
There is no between; CS is atomic.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:31:37 -0500 "Robert A. Rosenberg"
wrote:
:>At 14:28 -0500 on 12/20/2010, Gerhard Postpischil wrote about Re:
:>X-memory POST question:
:>>On 12/20/2010 11:28 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
:>>>A task in address space A issues a WAIT on an ECB
At 14:28 -0500 on 12/20/2010, Gerhard Postpischil wrote about Re:
X-memory POST question:
On 12/20/2010 11:28 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
A task in address space A issues a WAIT on an ECB in CSA (SP 241).
A task in address space B wishes to POST that ECB. Must it use an X-memory
POST (ASCB=A
On 12/20/2010 11:28 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
A task in address space A issues a WAIT on an ECB in CSA (SP 241).
A task in address space B wishes to POST that ECB. Must it use an X-memory
POST (ASCB=A)?
I see that you've already gotten a solution, but the strict
answer is no. If the ECB is not
void the POST if possible.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of Binyamin Dissen
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:35 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: X-memory POST question
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:28:06 -0800 Charl
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:28:06 -0800 Charles Mills wrote:
:>A task in address space A issues a WAIT on an ECB in CSA (SP 241).
:>A task in address space B wishes to POST that ECB. Must it use an X-memory
:>POST (ASCB=A)?
If the ECB is waiting. The XM post is required to schedule an SRB to "wake u
A task in address space A issues a WAIT on an ECB in CSA (SP 241).
A task in address space B wishes to POST that ECB. Must it use an X-memory
POST (ASCB=A)?
Charles
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructio
16 matches
Mail list logo