In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/22/2006
at 12:16 PM, Paul Gilmartin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>My understanding is that the design motivation was to be able to
>re-fetch a REFR load module in case of detected physical damage to a
>page.
Correct, and that is implicit in the definition of reshreshable, which
is weaker than R/O. However, as I recall the MCH would only refresh
code in a transient area and specified csects in the nucleus.
>Either lost in a redesign,
When there are no transient areas, you don't need to refresh the code
in them. That redesign was in SVS. When pageable nucleus csects came
along, that eliminated the need for the other piece of the design. Had
the original design of the MCH included refreshing arbitrary load
modules linked REFR then I'm sure that would have been retained.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
