SAM2, rev23 ACA question

Jim Hafner hafner at almaden.ibm.com
Wed Sep 4 11:39:33 PDT 2002


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Jim Hafner <hafner at almaden.ibm.com>
*
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0066553288256C2A_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Folks, 

In looking at SAM2, rev23, Table29 (Handling for new tasks from
non-faulted initiators during ACA), I'm confused by the description in
the updated part of the table where TST field is 001b. 

AFAIU, this particular combination can't occur. When TST=001b, there is
only one initiator associated to the task set, so either that initiator
is faulted or it's not.  If it is, then another table applies.   If it's
not faulted, then there can be no ACA condition.  If there is an ACA,
then there are no non-faulted initiators with respect to this task set.
Right? 

I understand the description in footnote "e" and do find that
enlightening.  However, the case of TST=001b and ACA attribute in the
table is confusing. It seems to indicate that commands are going to get
rejected, when they really can't (because the combination can't occur). 

I think it would be clearer (assuming I've got this right) to replace
the TST=001b row with 
| 001b |  Any attribute  | 0 or 1 |  n/a  |  Process the task (e)  | see
5.8.1.3  | 

Or am I completely misunderstanding the issue? 

Regards,
Jim Hafner

--=_alternative 0066553288256C2A_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Folks,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In looking at SAM2, rev23, Table29 (Handling for new tasks from non-faulted initiators during ACA), I'm confused by the description in the updated part of the table where TST field is 001b.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">AFAIU, this particular combination can't occur. When TST=001b, there is only one initiator associated to the task set, so either that initiator is faulted or it's not. &nbsp;If it is, then another table applies. &nbsp; If it's not faulted, then there can be no ACA condition. &nbsp;If there is an ACA, then there are no non-faulted initiators with respect to this task set. &nbsp;Right?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I understand the description in footnote "e" and do find that enlightening. &nbsp;However, the case of TST=001b and ACA attribute in the table is confusing. It seems to indicate that commands are going to get rejected, when they really can't (because the combination can't occur).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I think it would be clearer (assuming I've got this right) to replace the TST=001b row with</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier">| 001b | &nbsp;Any attribute &nbsp;| 0 or 1 | &nbsp;n/a &nbsp;| &nbsp;Process the task (e) &nbsp;| see 5.8.1.3 &nbsp;|</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Or am I completely misunderstanding the issue?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,<br>
Jim Hafner</font>
--=_alternative 0066553288256C2A_=--




More information about the T10 mailing list