In my opinion the problem with the OP's post is more that he apparently
thinks that BASH in and of itself will compromise z/OS security.
No, that's not at all what I'm thinking! Shell shock has just been the
trigger to open the long due requirement.
If we offer some piece of software to our
At 19:51 + on 10/17/2014, Chase, John wrote about Re: HSM Recall process:
An exception to the order of processing is when doing recalls from
tape, where DFSMShsm reduces the number of mounts by doing several
recalls from a given tape while the tape is continuously mounted. If
a recall
As I read thru the MVS Extended Addressability Guide
I am trying to understand restrictions,
In general, you should assume that a z/OS service does not support AMODE
64 unless it says it does.
In general, you should assume that a z/OS service that supports AMODE 64
does not support data above
The ERRET routine applies to cases where the invoker has no opportunity to
cover things:
- use of SPOST
- blowing up within the target address space attempting to post the XM
ECB.
It is up to the invoker's recovery to deal with a problem in the invoker's
thread (such as an invalid address
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:11:15 -0400, Peter Relson wrote:
In general, you should assume that a z/OS service that supports AMODE 64
does not support data above 2G unless it says it does.
If it does not, there's not a whole lot of rationale for (claiming to)
support AMODE 64.
-- gil
For the requests on the queue, in order. You may still be submitting
requests when the first one gets processed.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Robert A. Rosenberg hal9...@panix.com wrote:
At 19:51 + on 10/17/2014, Chase, John wrote about Re: HSM Recall
process:
An exception to the
It means junk that happens to be in the high 32 bits of a register won't mess
us up.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 7:35 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Never mind. Should not post before coffee.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: 64bit
It means junk that happens to
Paul,
There would certainly be no rationale for having AMODE(64) if there
were no above-the-bar virtual storage. Since, however, we do have
this storage there is sometimes a rationale for using AMODE(64) below
the bar, and the ability to invoke a facility from AMODE(64) code is
then also
It's as much as I can do just to spell CoBOL but, as far as I can tell, it's
not ready for prime time. Even its most avid proponent signs off thus:
TomR COBOL is the Language of the Future!
We are trapped in the present. We cannot get to the future. The nearest we
can
Well, I have no experience with forking an address space, but how would the two
communicate? Usually, there is some sort of common shared storage which does
require APF authorization to establish and cleanup.
Thanks! This would be a totally different
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 11:16:13 -0400, John Gilmore wrote:
There would certainly be no rationale for having AMODE(64) if there
were no above-the-bar virtual storage. Since, however, we do have
this storage there is sometimes a rationale for using AMODE(64) below
the bar, and the ability to invoke a
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 23:39:12 +0300, Binyamin Dissen
bdis...@dissensoftware.com wrote:
Is there some kind of USS communication path available? The standard MVS XMEM
post requires APF.
You wouldn't be posting; you'd be sending messages back and forth through one
of a variety of UNIX
At 09:38 -0500 on 10/18/2014, Mike Schwab wrote about Re: HSM Recall process:
For the requests on the queue, in order. You may still be submitting
requests when the first one gets processed.
I suppose you can live with the Race Condition (which means one out
of tape order recall requiring a
In 45fcfbbb8bc8eb4a9dfedc6fa2cc7fdf99a82...@sdkmbx02.emea.sas.com,
on 10/15/2014
at 06:03 AM, Lindy Mayfield lindy.mayfi...@sas.com said:
I honestly cannot remember why I did that, to divide by 38400,
Google for timer units, or check a 370-mode PoOps. I would hope that
IBM has stopped using
15 matches
Mail list logo
