FCP XFER_RDY

GFRAZIER at AUSVM6.VNET.IBM.COM GFRAZIER at AUSVM6.VNET.IBM.COM
Fri May 5 12:12:49 PDT 1995


Kurt Chan wrote:
>I understand why XFR_RDYs are undesireable on writes (latency).  But I
>would be more in favor of a proposal which consisted of both a PRLI
>bit and a dynamic indicator in the CMD which tells the target whether
>or not XFR_RDY is desired on a command by command basis.  The Process
> Login bit would indicate whether dynamic XFR_RDY is supported.

The PRLI bit sounds like a good idea. I don't think we need the bit
in the FCP_CMD since the data is to come immediately after the FCP_CMD
frame anyway. We still need the wording change in FCP, however.

Giles Frazier
IBM Austin
gfrazier at ausvm6.vnet.ibm.com




More information about the T10 mailing list