01-173r0 SRP bidirectional residuals
PJohansson at acm.org
Mon May 21 18:14:14 PDT 2001
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Peter Johansson <PJohansson at ACM.org>
At 05:48 PM 5/18/01, Elliott, Robert wrote:
>I promised to review the bidirectional residual text in FCP-2 and have
>written a proposal for how SRP should handle this in 01-173r0 (just
>submitted for posting). My recommendation is a bit different than FCP-2
>or iSCSI, since SRP has better support for bidirectional transfers. I
>recommend fixed DATA OUT and DATA IN residuals rather than an OUT or IN
>residual (used as OUT for bi-di commands) along with a bi-di IN residual.
Rob (and anyone else),
Your discussion in 01-173r1 is interesting, but I feel as if something else
is missing ...
Doesn't this issue of TWO residuals have to be addressed in SPC-2? For
particulars, see the INFORMATION field in sense data. Problem is, there's
only one of it!
Is work already underway to enhance SPC-2 (Ralph?) and I've just missed the
discussion? If not, how do protocol-dependent means, such as those proposed
for FCP or SRP, help the hapless device driver writer that's expecting to
find out about underrun or overrun in sense data after CHECK CONDITION?
Congruent Software, Inc.
98 Colorado Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94707
(510) 527-3856 FAX
PJohansson at ACM.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