> I parsed the original to mean that the ACEE itself had been deleted;
> not that a field within the definition had been.
=== Yes, me too. And, if that is in fact the case, it may explain why
only one customer out of 300+ is getting the problem.
What about any other cases where the ACEE has been freed ("deleted")
but the page remains? This code will go ahead and move data into the area
that is no longer the ACEE it thinks it is. It could be a free area
or another ACEE or something completely unrelated. This is worse
than getting a S0C4-11 because, despite being wrong,
there is no indication that anything has gone wrong.
But there's something bigger here. Why did this problem
take so long to be solved? The assumption that GETMAIN
was broken or that one subpool had overflowed into another was naive.
Why was it assumed that a WTO had been queued but never displayed?
Assuming that this "queued" WTO was seen in a dump, surely the PSW
and register contents could have been used more effectively.
And, if the GETMAIN worked as coded, why did the SP229 trace entries show up as
SP230?
It seems that a lot more effort was spent coming up with unlikely scenarios,
such as "issues with the DIAG parameter", than in a straightforward check
of where the abend occurred and why.
Am i all wet or am i thinking right ....
===
> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:32:28 -0400
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Getmain question
> To: [email protected]
>
> On 8 June 2012 07:57, Peter Relson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Issue was the ACEE and mode it was in when we tried
> >>to issue a MVC again a field in an ACEE that was
> >>deleted by IBM
> >
> > Scott,
> >
> > Could you be more specific about which field you think was deleted?
> >
> > We're usually pretty good about notifying ISVs via a "change notification"
> > and customers via release migration information about changes (including
> > deletions) to programming interfaces.
> >
> > There have been no fields deleted from the IHAACEE mapping in z/OS.
>
> I parsed the original to mean that the ACEE itself had been deleted;
> not that a field within the definition had been.
>
> Tony H.
