That's what I thought Peter Relson seemed to imply that Suspend may not necessarily mean The Suspend macro in which case IEAVPSE2 wouldn't work
I asked if that is what he meant and I didn't hear anything > On Jan 19, 2017, at 6:19 PM, Walt Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:31:57 -0600, Greg Dyck <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 1/19/2017 9:24 AM, Greg Dyck wrote: >>> Many, many, moons ago type 2 SVCs were managed differently from type 4 >>> SVCs. It's a fuzzy memory, but I believe they had to be 2K or less in >>> size and were loaded from SVCLIB transiently into a common 2K area. That >>> lead to restrictions for them that are still published but not actually >>> valid. >> >> Sigh... I just realized I mixed up type 2 and type 3 SVCs... forget that >> discussion. >> >> Again, SUSPEND is totally different service than Pause. The documented >> restriction is for SUSPEND, and only for SUSPEND. > > As quoted by the OP, the restriction did not mention any particular macro. It > said the caller of a type 2 SVC can't be suspended. Wouldn't a pause be a > form of suspencion? > > -- > Walt > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
