On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:10:26 -0500, Scott Fagen wrote: > >On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:38:13 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > >>Would repairing a defect be considered (part of) a business case? > >Of course. >> >> <snip> > >And what was the outcome of the incident? > It was so long ago that I was probably not submitting PMRs electronically; I find I have no electronic record. I'm confident there was no effective repair at the time. I don't recall an APAR with a PRS or SUG closure. I could test again and see whether the problem persists. It probably does. Ideally, IBM should have provided the downgrade ENQ facility so DYNALLOC could be made to operate as specified. Failing that, it would be better to change the specification to agree with reality and allow removing the pitfall rather than to pretend the pitfall doesn't exist. Merely documenting the hazard might be more dirty linen than IBM cares to hang out.
-- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
