> Why is a deadly embrace caused by an authorized program deemed
> less harmful than one caused by an unauthorized program?
I suspect you know that's not what I meant.
I think the assumption is that, if you are writing authorized code,
you know what you are doing and will take precautions to avoid
deadlocks or detect and recover from them.
> Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 11:36:07 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SVC99
> To: [email protected]
>
> On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:23:37 -0400, J R wrote:
>
> >Probably to ensure that not just anybody can cause a deadly embrace:
> >
> Why is a deadly embrace caused by an authorized program deemed
> less harmful than one caused by an unauthorized program?
>
> >"S99WTVOL / S99WTDSN / S99WTUNT / S99OFFLN / S99MOUNT :
> >Use care when you set these flags; setting any one of them
> >might cause a deadlock situation. For example, consider the
> >situation where JOBA owns a resource that JOBB wants and
> >JOBB owns a resource that JOBA wants. If one of the above
> >flags are on, the two jobs will wait until one job is cancelled."
>
> -- gil
_________________________________________________________________
Get Free (PRODUCT) RED™ Emoticons, Winks and Display Pics.
http://joinred.spaces.live.com?ocid=TXT_HMTG_prodredemoticons_052008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
