GRIN. Your restatement of the requirement is less convoluted than my
version. Either version just says that the attempt to reduce the
value should be logical/valid. The major point of my comment was to
point out not only the error occurring in replacing one updated value
with another generated from the same original value (since the second
update started before the first had finished its replace) but also
the possibility that both updates when performed one at a time would
result in the second update not being possible (since the sum of the
reductions was greater than the original starting value).
At 21:19 -0500 on 06/16/2014, Paul Gilmartin wrote about Re: RENT,
REFR and key=0 storage - A correction:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:36:43 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
in the retry logic where you would make a new expected and
replacement value before reissuing the CS, you make sure that the new
expected value is more than the amount you are reducing it by.
Or, perhaps more intuitively, make sure that the new replacement
value is >= 0.
-- 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
