Talk:Unit Control Block

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Q-type address constants?[edit]

The phrase "16-bit Q-type (i.e. relocatable) addresses" is doubly wrong; first, the I/O device lookup table did not have Q-type address constants and, second, Q is used for offsets within an external dummy. Perhaps the editor meant Y-type, which is a 15-bit relocatable constant.

OS Assembler Language (PDF) (Tenth ed.), IBM, January 1974, p. 48, GC28-6514-9, Q-Type Address Constant (Assembler F only): This constant is used to reserve storage for the offset of an external dummy section. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priority queueing[edit]

Priority queuing of I/O did not come in with the Workload Manager (WLM); in fact, priority queuing of I/O existed in OS/360 Release 15/16[1] and ordered queuing[a] existed by Release 21.[2] Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ ordered by cylinder.

References

  1. ^ "Priority Enqueuing of I/O Requests" (PDF). IBM System/360 Operating System Release 15/16 (PDF) (First ed.). IBM. February 1968. p. 35. Y28-6681-0.
  2. ^ "IODEVICE" (PDF). OS System Generation Release 21 (PDF) (Eleventh ed.). IBM. February 1972. p. 338. GC28-6554-11. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

Queuing by channel only applies to S/370 and ECPS:VSE modes[edit]

Operating systems running in z/Architecture mode do not queue I/O by channel, nor do systems running in XA or ESA mode, only systems that run in S/370 or ECPS:VSE mode and use the SIO instruction. All newer systems use the SSCH instruction and the channel subsystem handles the assignment and queuing of channels. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite web}} is for online citations for which there's no other appropriate template.[edit]

To quote the documentation for {{cite web}}:

This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template.

{{Cite book}} characterizes books, so books are not "web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template", and there is no reason to use {{cite web}} for them. Guy Harris (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

user:Voidxor also removed |section=, |section-url= and |via=bitsavers.org; you restored |section= and |section-url= to one citation but not to the other. Is there a reason for that, and for not reinstating |via=bitsavers.org? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason for that Not noticing that they'd been removed from the other citation.
and for not reinstating |via=bitsavers.org? Not seeing a reason why it's significant that the manuals from IBM happens to have been scanned into PDFs and hosted at the Computer History Museum's Bitsavers collection. Guy Harris (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC):[reply]
@Guy Harris: I appreciate you for at least using {{cite web}} {{cite book}} over the long-since-merged {{cite manual}}. Also, thank you for providing your reasoning rather than stubbornly reverting without collaborating or teaching. Your quote from the cite-web doc is something that's probably been staring me in the face, yet I've somehow missed after my 2015 conversation with FleetCommand (since banned, I see) here. Some things leave me scratching my head on Wikipedia, but I always appreciate consistency. — voidxor 20:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you meant "for at least using {{cite book}}". I usually try to give explanations in edit comments, possibly with talk page comments, for non-obvious changes. Guy Harris (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That I did, thanks! — voidxor 22:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Voidxor: Had the change been limited to replacing {{cite manual}} with {{cite book}} and removing |via=, it would not have been objectionable. However, changing it to {{cite web}} and removing location parameters was another matter. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as I have already admitted (above), that was due to a misunderstanding on my part after having an admin tell me that {{cite web}} should take priority for online book and news sources. Why rehash this? Your continued use of {{cite manual}} instead of {{cite book}} is another matter; please don't conflate. You could've just as easily used {{cite book}} and pointed me to the correct guideline, but it took Guy Harris to do that. — voidxor 17:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources?[edit]

Is the Network and Systems Professionals Association (NASPA) NaSPA Technical Support Magazine considered to be a WP:RS? I'm thinking in particular of Keeping up With the Unit Control Block: Part II by Sam Golob. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]