In 638895340519.wa.dlikensinfosecinc@bama.ua.edu, on
08/10/2011
at 08:46 AM, Donald Likens dlik...@infosecinc.com said:
You stated that I could not get the CML lock if the local lock is
help. Is there a problem getting the local lock if the CML lock is
held?
There is no the CML; a CML
I actually load it into CSA, set the address of the buffer and then dynamically
add it to LPA. It works well.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the
I was planning to check the return code of the obtain lock to determine if I
should release it. I do not think it is as elegant as your approach but I think
a little easier. Does anyone see a flaw in this idea?
You stated that I could not get the CML lock if the local lock is help. Is
there a
, August 09, 2011 6:52 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: SETLOCK in IEFU85
In 9804830367453020.wa.dlikensinfosecinc@bama.ua.edu, on
08/09/2011
at 06:56 AM, Donald Likens dlik...@infosecinc.com said:
I am not familure with FWIW?
For what it's worth. Google for jargon file and you'll
Donald,
I suspect it would be better to investigate why your CS code did not work
than to start messing with locks.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Donald Likens dlik...@infosecinc.comwrote:
I was planning to check the return code of the obtain lock to determine if
I should release it. I do
, August 10, 2011 9:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: SETLOCK in IEFU85
I was planning to check the return code of the obtain lock to determine if I
should release it. I do not think it is as elegant as your approach but I
think a little easier. Does anyone see a flaw in this idea?
You stated
Maybe a very short tutorial showing how to google?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=FWIW
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ITYM
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Bill Fairchild bi...@mainstar.com wrote:
FWIW (pun intended), you could also Google for FWIW in case you can't
remember that FWIW is defined in a jargon
Yes, I know. But I don't know why the OP said CS isn't working and
wanted to do a SETLOCK instead. It may be that using logic with PLO
instructions in a consistent manner would do what using the simpler CS
will not. But the OP never said what he was trying to accomplish and why
a CS didn't work.
Thank You for your help... What I have got from your responses is:
1. There are other ways to serialize. I tried a CS loop but here is what I
think is happening:
In CS loop.
Interrupt occurs.
Process other address space.
Loop forever waiting for other CS loop (system stops).
I am attempting to
Assuming that you do need the CMS lock, then it does not matter whether
you get the local lock of home (LOCAL lock) or the local lock of your
primary or secondary space (CML, if not equal to home). The LOCAL lock is
easier, as it does not require you to identify which ASCB.
Do note the caveat
Thanks for the suggestion. I have never heard of PLO before and I do not
understand it 100% but I do not think it will work. I need to do a bunch of
instructions handling end of buffer operations and a MVCL.
--
For IBM-MAIN
I read that U85 may already be locked. I figured I would simply issue the
setlock command and check the return code. If I get a 4 return code I will not
release the lock.
I think I answered all your other comments or suggestions in previous replies.
Thank You!
In 1312882870.1688.4.ca...@teo.johnmckown.net, on 08/09/2011
at 04:40 AM, John McKown joa...@swbell.net said:
Yes, I know. But I don't know why the OP said CS isn't working and
wanted to do a SETLOCK instead.
The OP was asking about synchronizing against existing code. IF SMF
uses the CMS
I am not familure with FWIW?
I think I need the CMS lock because I am updating CSA.
If there are more than one CMS locks how do you tell the system which lock to
obtain.
I was planning about issuing the following commands:
SETLOCK OBTAIN,
: SETLOCK in IEFU85
I am not familure with FWIW?
I think I need the CMS lock because I am updating CSA.
If there are more than one CMS locks how do you tell the
system which lock to obtain.
I was planning about issuing the following commands:
SETLOCK OBTAIN
You understand completely. I thought of the control block structure you talk
about but I wanted to control how much space I used in CSA and avoid the extra
overhead. Of course I could limit the number of control blocks I create but
this seemed to work. PS. I anchor the buffer in a module
: Re: SETLOCK in IEFU85
You understand completely. I thought of the control block structure you talk
about but I wanted to control how much space I used in CSA and avoid the extra
overhead. Of course I could limit the number of control blocks I create but
this seemed to work. PS. I anchor
On 8/9/2011 11:54 AM, Donald Likens wrote:
seemed to work. PS. I anchor the buffer in a module
dynamically loaded into LPA. When I designed this I wasn't
even sure I could do a getmain in IEFU85 since it could not
issue SVCs (I have since learned obtain storage does a PC).
It is expected that
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 06:08:02 -0500 Donald Likens dlik...@infosecinc.com
wrote:
:Thank You for your help... What I have got from your responses is:
:1. There are other ways to serialize. I tried a CS loop but here is what I
think is happening:
:In CS loop.
:Interrupt occurs.
:Process other
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:54:58 -0500 Donald Likens dlik...@infosecinc.com
wrote:
:You understand completely. I thought of the control block structure you talk
about but I wanted to control how much space I used in CSA and avoid the extra
overhead. Of course I could limit the number of control
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:54:58 -0500, Donald Likens dlik...@infosecinc.com wrote:
You understand completely. I thought of the control block structure you talk
about but I wanted to control how much space I used in CSA and avoid the extra
overhead. Of course I could limit the number of control
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 14:56:24 -0500, Walt Farrell wrote:
I'm curious why you're using CSA at all.
And if you must use CSA, are you using a system key?
--
Tom Marchant
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
In 9804830367453020.wa.dlikensinfosecinc@bama.ua.edu, on
08/09/2011
at 06:56 AM, Donald Likens dlik...@infosecinc.com said:
I am not familure with FWIW?
For what it's worth. Google for jargon file and you'll find a lot of
other common abbreviations.
I think I need the CMS lock because I
In 4e417b52.9030...@valley.net, on 08/09/2011
at 02:24 PM, Gerhard Postpischil gerh...@valley.net said:
It is expected that modules loaded into LPA be reentrant (or rather,
refreshable). You could use that method only if you also pagefix the
page containing your pointer (and if you do your
I need to update common storage from my IEFU85 SMF exit. I am currently using a
compare and swap loop to serialize on this update but I think there is a
problem with this approach and looking at using SETLOCK. My question is...
IEFU85 is in cross memory mode. I need the CMS lock. To get the
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Donald Likens
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 7:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: SETLOCK in IEFU85
I need to update common storage from my IEFU85 SMF exit. I am
currently using a compare and swap loop to serialize on this
update but I
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 07:06:45 -0500 Donald Likens dlik...@infosecinc.com
wrote:
:I need to update common storage from my IEFU85 SMF exit. I am currently using
a compare and swap loop to serialize on this update but I think there is a
problem with this approach and looking at using SETLOCK. My
It is highly unlikely that you would need a CMS lock. If you are in a properly
established cross memory environment then PASN is going to stay put. There are
multiple ways of serializing storage modifications w/o resorting to a lock.
FWIW to get a CMS lock (there's more than one) you must
In a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea00afc0ed...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom,
on 08/08/2011
at 07:21 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com said:
Just out of curiosity, what is your problem with CS? Perhaps PLO
would be better? It has more functions.
The basic rule is that all parties must use
29 matches
Mail list logo
