True, but not in the test case I used to verify that the problem exists in the simplest way I could think of.
Step 1. A user written program that issues the wait SVC without the ECB ever being posted. Step 2. PGM=IEFBR14 with a dataset allocated DISP=SHR A D GRS command verified that the enqueue was held by this job while it was waiting in step 1. Mark Jacobs Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email. GPG Public Key - https://api.protonmail.ch/pks/lookup?op=get&[email protected] On Tuesday, February 18th, 2025 at 4:09 PM, Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:58:20 +0000, Mark Jacobs wrote: > > > No. It's all one job. I did verify that the problematic enqueue is owned by > > the the second step of the batch job. > > Nowadays a single job can use multiple address spaces and > ENQ conflicts can arise between the,. Such a problem has > occurred and been discussed here before. > > > On Tuesday, February 18th, 2025 at 2:17 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: > > > > > Are you using multiple address spaces? (What program?) > > > SDSF might tell you. > > > -- > gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
