My guess is that the instantiation is a POST to the subtask related ECB and a WAIT on the other main task ECB (perhaps related to the subtask) and the undo is the reverse.
Correct? At any rate, I wanted to allow task! a quantum of processing time before allowing task2 to continue. After that I do not care if they run in parallel. Yes, I know that TCTL ends the SRB processing so not exactly identical, but ..... On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 12:54:26 -0700 Ed Jaffe <[email protected]> wrote: :>On 6/13/2022 9:21 AM, Binyamin Dissen wrote: :>> Is there a service similar to TCTL so that a task can give control to another :>> task? :> :>We wrote our own. If you issue this internal macro (let's call it :>SUBTASK), the next instruction after the macro is running in a subtask. :>If you issue SUBTASK again, the next instruction is back in the original :>task. We have a similar macro to pass control to an enclave SRB and back. :> :>In our case, it's intended to be used like a subroutine call -- the :>macro calls must appear in pairs -- so it's not quite as general-purpose :>as TCTL, but I'm sure than can be done too... . :> . main-task code . :> SUBTASK TCB=tcbaddr . :> . subtask code . :> SUBTASK , . :> . resume main-task code . -- Binyamin Dissen <[email protected]> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
