On Sep 24, 2012, at 07:42, David Stokes wrote: > Yes, when I read "what happens when a parallel task deletes my data while I'm > using it", I think, maybe better not to allow that to happen. The whole > list might have been logically deleted "behind you" amongst many other > possibilities, and it doesn't need an interrupt. So I offered my suggestion > that one typically needs to serialize over the whole process until one has > "used" the data in such a case. Or avoid such a situation, e.g. by marking > an object in-use/free or whatever (which will still need serialization, of > course). But obviously pointless for me to pursue the matter, interesting as > it is. > Copy it, then retry if needed. The reader needn't serialize.
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] Im > Auftrag von Peter Relson > Gesendet: Samstag, 22. September 2012 15:49 > > All such techniques that I know of rely on the fact that the blocks can > *never* be deleted. With transactions, you can accommodate deletion. > > This is true for name/token and even CPOOL (which doesn't even need to "run" > just look at the first element's forward pointer). -- gil
