It would have helped those of us who only follow IBM-MAIN to have some
clue of what the question was.
STORAGE is equivalent to GETMAIN in terms of serialization. For what it's
worth, GETMAIN/FREEMAIN can be considered now a beast of the past. STORAGE
LINKAGE=SVC is GETMAIN/FREEMAIN (for at
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Neil Duffee
At 2009.12.03 07:57 concerning Re: question on STORAGE function -
TCB may become non-dispatchable?, John Chase jch...@uss...com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
CICS itself exploits (some) above-the-bar addressing: Containers are
stored there, but for application access to that data CICS copies it to
24- or 31-bit storage. Applications themselves cannot directly access
the data in 64-bit storage (Assembler excepted, of course; but you're
on your
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [On Behalf Of Neil Duffee
On 2009-12-02 at 12:14 concerning Re: question on STORAGE function -
TCB may become non-dispatchable?, John Chase jch...@uss...com
wrote to IBM-Main :
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf
become non-dispatchable?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [On Behalf Of Neil Duffee
On 2009-12-02 at 12:14 concerning Re: question on STORAGE function -
TCB may become non-dispatchable?, John Chase jch...@uss...com
wrote to IBM-Main :
From: IBM Mainframe
In a6b9336cdb62bb46b9f8708e686a7ea005bde01...@nrhmms8p02.uicnrh.dom, on
12/02/2009
at 10:08 AM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com said:
There is an ongoing discussion on the CICS-L list about doing a STORAGE
macro or GETMAIN/FREEMAIN. Some are saying that these functions can
result in
At 2009.12.03 07:57 concerning Re: question on STORAGE function -
TCB may become non-dispatchable?, John Chase jch...@uss...com
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [On Behalf Of Neil Duffee
[snip]
The original request was for experiences / advice on using 64-bit
There is an ongoing discussion on the CICS-L list about doing a STORAGE macro
or GETMAIN/FREEMAIN. Some are saying that these functions can result in a
wait for the CICS QR TCB (the TCB under which most of the CICS transactions
are run). The discussion has now become that the STORAGE macro
As far as I know, Storage just uses a different mechanism (PC) to invoke the
same code that Getmain/Freemain uses. Since the PC runs under the TCB that
invokes it, I don't understand why anyone thinks there will be a wait of any
type. Since Storage doesn't suffer an SVC interrupt, it's probably
- TCB may become non-dispatchable?
Sent by:
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
There is an ongoing discussion on the CICS-L list about doing a STORAGE
macro or GETMAIN/FREEMAIN. Some are saying that these functions can result
in a wait for the CICS QR TCB (the TCB under which most
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Bob Shannon
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:25 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: question on STORAGE function - TCB may become
non-dispatchable?
As far as I know
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: question on STORAGE function - TCB may become non-dispatchable?
A PC-cp doesn't have any sort of implicit wait, so I don't see what they
are referring to in that sense. Both GETMAIN (a type one SVC) and the
STORAGE PC routine will, at some point have to get
McKown, John wrote:
Anybody have a definate response as to whether a STORAGE function can cause the
TCB to become z/OS non-dispatchable. I agree that it is not a good idea to do
this in CICS.
Work unit non-dispatchability is the key. They are throwing around the
term WAIT
Bill Fairchild wrote:
A debugging investigator made wary by previous encounters with Dr. Murphy
should assume that any hypothetically possible situation will occur, and
especially if the consequences are the most severe. So the TCB occasionally is
being suspended because the local lock is
: Re: question on STORAGE function - TCB may become non-dispatchable?
Bill Fairchild wrote:
A debugging investigator made wary by previous encounters with Dr. Murphy
should assume that any hypothetically possible situation will occur, and
especially if the consequences are the most severe. So
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Rob Scott
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: question on STORAGE function - TCB may become
non-dispatchable?
I am curious as to why
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Rob Scott
I am curious as to why the developer wants to bypass normal CICS
storage services (which probably is
just a case of compare-and-swapping a chunk on some sort of SM domain
queue)
This sounds very much
:
McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com
To:
IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Date:
12/02/2009 11:07 AM
Subject:
Re: question on STORAGE function - TCB may become non-dispatchable?
Sent by:
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
On 2009-12-02 at 12:14 concerning Re: question on STORAGE function -
TCB may become non-dispatchable?, John Chase jch...@uss...com
wrote to IBM-Main :
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Rob Scott
[snip] why [snip] bypass normal CICS storage services [snip] sounds
very much
19 matches
Mail list logo
