Yes. We check for a zero return code. I know it's implied by the comment for that field that any issuance of STSI would update that timestamp. We have only seen one case where it was not done as a result of a COD upgrade. I thought our method for detecting a COD was the right method; maybe it's not.
Mike Shaw MVS/QuickRef Support Group Chicago-Soft, Ltd. On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:26 PM, retired mainframer < [email protected]> wrote: > Since a COD upgrade is "one event" that alters the field, it seems > reasonable to conclude that there are other events that also alter the > field. Your code may be making a false assumption. > > Does your program check the return code after calling the CSRSI service? > > The Knowledge Center (at > https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.2.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r2.ieaa700/CSRSI_Description.htm > ) > identifies conditions under which the field is not valid. Do any of these > conditions apply to your customer? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:ASSEMBLER- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Shaw > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:14 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: CSRSIIDF Question > > > > Anyone: > > > > Question about comments in the CSRSIIDF mapping DSECT used to map > > information returned by a call to the CSRSI service. The DSECT has this > field in it: > > > > SI00LASTUPDATETIMESTAMP DS CL8 STCK > > > > With these comments for the field: > > > > "timestamp when system last re-issued STSI to retrieve the most > current > > information. A capacity upgrade on demand event is one event that results > > in this update. The field is 0's if the information has not been > > retrieved since IPL." > > > Our code treats a non-zero value in the above field as an indication > that a capacity on demand upgrade has been performed since the last IPL. A > customer of ours had a non-zero value in the timestamp field, even though > they said they had not performed a capacity on demand upgrade. > > > The comments in the DSECT for the timestamp field make me think we > should not rely on just this field to signal that a capacity on demand > upgrade has occurred. > > > Question: is it incorrect to rely on the presence of a timestamp in the > SI00LASTUPDATETIMESTAMP field as an indication that a capacity on demand > upgrade has been done? >
