Alan, I understand that they are synonyms _now_. The problem is, they didn't start out that way, and the lack of appropriate documentation to that effect has caused problems in the field. (Perhaps only to me, but still....)
I'm not saying that code changes need to be made (at this point), just documentation changes. The long-term solution may be to remove the escon device name entirely, but that's something that can happen down the road. Mark Post -----Original Message----- From: Alan Altmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: CTC Driver Problem On Saturday, 11/22/2003 at 08:27 EST, "Post, Mark K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just checked the latest version of this document, lx24jun03dd02.pdf, and > it still gives examples like this: > Or for two network devices (CTC + ESCON): > ctc0,0x601,0x600 > escon3,0x605,0x608 > > Who do I need to contact to get this cleaned up? Something to consider: ctc and escon are synonyms. It is ok to to specify "ctc0" and "escon3", but not ok to have "ctc0" and "escon0". I.e. you can't have the same suffix. But it would probably serve better to simply not document "escon" and to issue messages when duplicate device names are encountered. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development
