On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:47:14 -0500, Joel C. Ewing wrote: >The manner >in which services and address spaces were allowed to use LNKLST DCBs >should have been much better constrained so that those system processes >using a LNKLST DCB for any extended time were required to "register" >their active and continuing usage, and each time before actual use check >whether there is a pending request to quiesce the DCB, in which case if >possible the service should relinquish its use of the old DCB and >refresh its LNKLST knowledge.
Wow. You are suggesting that every program that issues LOAD, LINK, etc. would have to be rewritten, and made considerably more complex. >With such a design the system should then >be able to "advise" user address spaces to cooperate in the UPDATE >process and know which active address spaces are holding up a safe >UPDATE. With such a design, LNKLST would not be transparent, but every program that loads a module would have to coordinate with LNKLST every time. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
