Ok, I finally managed to trip over the email that I had stopped looking for. :P
The person having the problem was one of my co-workers in South America. He had moved a Linux/390 system from being in an LPAR, to being a z/VM guest. When he tried to IPL the guest, he was getting this: HCPGIR450W CP entered; disabled wait PSW 000A0000 00000102 He told me that when he changed the CP directory entry from a machine type of XA to ESA, the problem went away. I never saw the CP directory definitions, so I took his word for it all. Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Romney White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mach in user direct Mark: Maybe it was incorrectly defined as an XC-mode guest. Romney On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 13:38:37 -0400 Post, Mark K said: >Something about this rings a bell. Someone recently had a problem, and the >fix was to define the Linux guest as a machine type of ESA, not XA. I can't >remember if that came up on this list, or in a private email. I'll do some >poking around and see if I can find the note. > > >Mark Post > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rich Smrcina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:11 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Mach in user direct > > >According to z/VM 4.3 CP Planning and Administration under the MACHINE >statement of the user directory: > >XA >designates an XA virtual machine, which is functionally equivalent to an >ESA virtual machine. > >On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 07:34, Daniel Jarboe wrote: >> We are running linux images with 31 bit addressing under z/VM. The >> machine arch for our linux images has been defined by our VM sysprog as >> XA. Is there any disadvantage/advantage of this vs. ESA or some other >> architecture as far as the linux images are concerned? My initial >> thought was that the compiler/assembler may choose different >> instructions for increased effeciency depending on the architecture it's >> building for, but I don't know if there's any truth to that thought or >> if there'd even be any differences. Is there any reason to change the >> architecture, and if so, could the change have any adverse impact? >> >> Thanks, >> ~ Daniel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> This message is the property of Time Inc. or its affiliates. It may be >> legally privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the use >> of the addressee(s). No addressee should forward, print, copy, or >> otherwise reproduce this message in any manner that would allow it to be >> viewed by any individual not originally listed as a recipient. If the >> reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby >> notified that any unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, distribution, >> copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the information >> herein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication >> in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this message. >> Thank you. >-- >Rich Smrcina >Sr. Systems Engineer >Sytek Services - A Division of DSG >Milwaukee, WI >rsmrcina at wi.rr.com >rsmrcina at dsgroup.com > >Catch the WAVV! Stay for requirements and the free-for-all. >Update your zSeries skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. >WAVV 2004 in Chattanooga, TN >April 30-May 4, 2004 >For details see http://www.wavv.org
