On 7 November 2013 09:33, Donald Likens <[email protected]> wrote:
> Now that I understand it (mostly) I am pretty sure it will not work for me. > My problem is that a process comes in and removes the control block chain > while another process is suspended and attempting to update the chain. When > the updating process wakes up S0C4! That is why I was looking at using locks. > If the process updating the chain holds a lock and the process removing the > chain needs that lock to update the pointers this would not happen. Why don't you show us your control block layout, and explain how many work units can add items, and how, how many can read, etc. There are few of these things that truly require use of locks/ENQs and the like. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
