|
On Thu, 18 October 2001, "Leif Svalgaard" wrote: > From: <David.X.Kahn@gsk.com> > > But if you were running Fast400 you would check before applying _any_ PTF, > > wouldn't you? > > and what would happen if you didn't? the system would just revert to > its state before FAST400. Not that it is broken or anything like that, no? Wouldn't that depend on what meaning was assigned to 'that bit' after the PTF was applied? If indeed it is undocumented or in an unsupported area, it could easily be defined as a bit that determines whether that job is to be ended immediately or anything IBM chooses. One reason for having such structures hidden is so that changes can be made without negative external consequences. Conceivably, IBM could have had V5R2 plans for a couple of years to redefine that structure (however unlikely). Tom Liotta -- Tom Liotta The PowerTech Group, Inc. 19426 68th Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Phone 253-872-7788 Fax 253-872-7904 http://www.400Security.com ___________________________________________________ The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe Better! Faster! More Powerful! 250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now! http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
