FW: persistent reservations follow-up question

George_Penokie at tivoli.com George_Penokie at tivoli.com
Fri Dec 1 18:03:49 PST 2000


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* George_Penokie at tivoli.com
*
David,

Not really. You can look at in one of two ways, both end in the same
result.
-The target does the preempt by clearing the reservation and registration
then establishing a new reservation and new registration before completing
the operation. The new reservation would be defined by the type and scope
fields and the new registration key would be the reservation key fields
value. OR
- The target does the preempt by clearing the reservation and does nothing
with the registration. It knows not to do anything because the reservation
key and the service action reservation key are equal. Because they are
equal the target knows only the reservation type and scope are going to be
changed. This is all allowed because to the following statement in section
5.5.3.6.3.3:

A PERSISTENT RESERVE OUT specifying a PREEMPT service action with the
SERVICE ACTION RESERVATION KEY value equal to the reservation key is not an
error. In that case the device server shall establish the new reservation.

Bye for now,
George Penokie

Dept 2C6  114-2 N212
E-Mail:    gpenokie at tivoli.com
Internal:  553-5208
External: 507-253-5208   FAX: 507-253-2880


"Ulrich, David" <dulrich at lsil.com>@t10.org on 11/29/2000 11:11:55 AM

Sent by:  owner-t10 at t10.org


To:   "'t10 at t10.org'" <t10 at t10.org>
cc:
Subject:  FW: persistent reservations follow-up question





George,

Thanks for the reply.

I have considered what you said below and while looking at figure 2 and
following the flowchart another question has come to mind.  Assuming that
no error conditions are encountered wouldn't we eventually come to the
point of removing the registration for the initiator holding the
reservation, which in this case also happens to be the preemptor, removing
the reservation, and then attempting create a new reservation for the
initiator we just removed the registration information for?

Regards,
David Ulrich

-----Original Message-----
From: George_Penokie/Tivoli_Systems%TIVOLI_SYSTEMS at us.ibm.com
[mailto:George_Penokie/Tivoli_Systems%TIVOLI_SYSTEMS at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 10:00 AM
To: Ulrich, David
Cc: 't10 at t10.org'
Subject: Re: persistent reservations

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* George_Penokie/Tivoli_Systems%TIVOLI_SYSTEMS at us.ibm.com
*
David,
The logical unit would respond as no differently than if the PREEMPT AND
ABORT came from an initiator that did not hold the reservation. (i.e., it
would follow the flow chart in figure 2 to preempt and the description in
section 5.5.3.6.4 to abort.

Bye for now,
George Penokie

Dept 2C6  114-2 N212
E-Mail:    gpenokie at tivoli.com
Internal:  553-5208
External: 507-253-5208   FAX: 507-253-2880

"Ulrich, David" <dulrich at lsil.com>@t10.org on 11/20/2000 09:52:51 AM

Sent by:  owner-t10 at t10.org

To:   "'t10 at t10.org'" <t10 at t10.org>
cc:
Subject:  persistent reservations




Is there any behavior defined if an initiator issues a PREEMPT AND ABORT
command to a logical unit that it has reserved?



*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org



*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org




More information about the T10 mailing list