Re: MVS under VM\ESA

--- In [email protected], Ivan Warren <ivan@...> wrote:
>
> The Start Interpretive Execution (SIE) instruction 
> isn't described in the Principle Of Operations.

Crikey.

> However, it is essential to the operations 
> of VM/XA SF and SP, VM/ESA and z/VM. All XA 
> and above systems implement 
> it. Without this instruction, none of those 
> virtualisation hypervisors work.

Ok, I guess that it causes a trap on every
priviledged instruction, while still appearing
to be priviledged in any instruction that would
see such a thing?

> > I guess it's to do with single instruction
> > execution. What's that got to do with 2K
> > vs 4K pages that Dave mentioned?
> > 
> > And surely pretending to protect 4K pages
> > when you're only protecting 2K is going to
> > have an adverse effect on something?
> 
> Your message also indicated how VM/ESA could 
> handle S/370 DAT or S/370 I/O.. That's what 
> I was answering to.

Ok, so they left the support for 370 I/O in
there, just like supporting BC mode.

> When a S/370 program running on a S/370 with 4K 
> protection keys issues a 
> SSK or ISK instruction, it will be greeted with a program interrupt 
> *UNLESS* CR0 Bit 7 is set to 1 in which case, SSK and ISK 
> operate in the same manner as as SSKE/ISKE.

Why wasn't this made the default, for upward
compatibility, like is normally done? Now every
single old program needs to be hacked to update
every manipulation of CR0, to make sure that
bit 7 is set?

> >> my (not talking to me) friend.. SIE
> > 
> > Pardon? Who isn't talking to who?
> 
> Your message dated July 9th 2010 on this list seemed 
> pretty clear to me 
> about this (a quite rude message along of the line 
> of "messages are 
> being utterly ignored", "pissing in the wind" and 
> such language).

You really only see what you want to see, don't you?

>>> but please, allow us to have
>>> our own views about it
>>> without throwing hyperboles into it.

Here is you telling me what I can and can't do,
in response to a rude message. As if that isn't 
rude all on its own.

>> Your message is being totally and utterly ignored

And here I say I am ignoring the rude "directive"
in THAT MESSAGE ("message" - singular).

But because you only see what you want to see, you
saw rudeness where none existed, while ignoring your
own rudeness (crikey - I remember an (ultimately)
futile indoctrination attempt regarding logs and
eyes from some book about that), and then made a 
hyperbolic statement about it being all
messages from you that I was ignoring, instead of
just the one that you decided was rude.

Good grief.  Paul.