Open issues from January 11 SAM working group
Charles Monia, SHR3-2/W4, 237-6757, email@example.com 08-Feb-1994 1847
monia at starch.enet.dec.com
Tue Feb 8 15:46:52 PST 1994
From: Charles Monia
SAM Technical Editor
To: Members of X3T10
Subject: Open issues from January 11 SAM working group
Ref: (a) X3T10/94-043R0 Results of 11 January, 1994 SAM Working Group Review
The purpose of this note is to request feedback on the following open
issues from the last SAM working group review:
1) Logical unit policy for automatic return of sense data.
2) Logical unit response to a CLEAR ACA task management function
while an ACA command is pending.
Item 1: When must a target automatically return sense data?
Assuming the protocol supports automatic return of sense data by a
target (AKA 'autosense'), and the application client (i.e., the device
driver) requests autosense information, when must the target return such
a) If and only if a command terminates with a CHECK CONDITION or COMMAND
b) Any time sense data is available after completion of a command,
regardless of status. E.g., on the occurrence of a recovered error
after a status of GOOD was returned.
I have no bias either way. However, I should mention that if the protocol
does not support autosense, the behavior of alternative (a) can be
easily simulated by host software (e.g., the CAM-SIM layer).
Alternative B, on the other hand, cannot be simulated when sense data is
unexpectedly generated by the logical unit.
Item 2: After a contingent allegiance condition occurs, how should a
logical unit respond to a CLEAR ACA task management function
while an ACA command is pending?
Alternative a) The CLEAR ACA task management function shall cause the
ACA command to be aborted.
Alternative b) The CLEAR ACA task management function shall not affect
the pending ACA command. However, other pending commands
may then complete.
More information about the T10