I think that Binyamin's point was about RB's within a task. For example, if your PRB was waiting on "ECB-PRB" and an IRB popped on that same task while the PRB was waiting and the IRB itself went into a WAIT on "ECB-IRB", the task would not be woken up upon a post of "ECB-PRB".
Now that you have shown the TCB's and their RB's and their PSW's, show the register 1 for each of the RB's (particularly those with a non-0 wait count) and the value of each ECB identified by each register 1 (noting that, if waiting on an ECB list, the register 1 is the negative of the address of the ECB list) If the ECB was posted using the POST service, the system would not have lost track. If the ECB was simply modified to have the POST bit on (by any program that can write to that storage), that would not be a "post". The quick-post protocol of setting the POST bit on outside of the POST service requires use of CS and requires that the ECB not already be waiting. There is no way of telling after the fact from seeing an ECB with x'40' in the high byte how it got that way. A SLIP storage alteration trap on that word could have caught the update. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
