On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Steff Gladstone <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sorry, John. My question was unclear. It was referring to your earlier > remarks above: > > Thinking about it a bit more, given what Mr. Relson > said about RTM, doing this _should_ work even if the initiator > terminates > abnormally since RTM should clean up the ENQs during EOM processing. > > Are you saying that RTM should clean up the ENQ even without modifying the > SWA with information for the DD, as you > suggested to do earlier? > > Ah. thanks for the clarification. No, in a normal EOJ case, RTM will not clean up the directed ENQs. I didn't do a good enough refer back. In one of my posts, I mentioned that if the initiator abends, in my case with a S40D, that (years ago) the ENQs were left outstanding despite the fact that the initiator went to EOM. Mr. Relson indicated that should not occur any more. If your job simply goes to normal EOJ with the initiator continuing as it normally does, then the directed ENQs will NOT be released by the initiator code because _it_ knows nothing about them. And RTM won't clean them up because the initiator TCB does not terminate. So, in that case (normal EOJ), you must ensure that the last step of the job executes and that the program it runs does a directed DEQ of the appropriate resources. This is why I mentioned updating the SWA in addition to doing the directed ENQ. By modifying the SWA, you can basically trick the initiator into doing the DEQs for you at EOJ. I really hope that I said all of that correctly. But as Seymour said, this directed ENQ to the initiator TCB is fraught with peril. -- If you sent twitter messages while exploring, are you on a textpedition? He's about as useful as a wax frying pan. 10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
