Preempting all target ports

Kevin D Butt kdbutt at us.ibm.com
Mon Dec 1 09:11:24 PST 2003


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Kevin D Butt <kdbutt at us.ibm.com>
*
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 005E459607256DEF_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


I would expect a).

Kevin D. Butt
Fibre Channel & SCSI Architect, IBM Tape Microcode, 
6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ  85744
Tie-line 321; Office: 520-799-5280, Lab: 799-5751, Fax: 799-4138, Email:
kdbutt at us.ibm.com 



	Ralph Weber <roweber at IEEE.org> 
Sent by: owner-t10 at t10.org 


11/30/2003 09:36 AM 
        
        To:        T10 Reflector <t10 at t10.org> 
        cc:         
        Subject:        Preempting all target ports 





* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
*
Suppose that an initiator registers using the ALL_TG_PT option.

Sometime later for whatever reason, the initiator decides to
preempt its own reservation key.

Would you expect that:

 a) the registration is preempted on all target ports except
    the target port through which the preempt was delivered, or
 b) the registration is not preempted on any of the target
    ports associated with the preempting initiator?

I believe that SPC-3 says a). Furthermore, the a) interpretation
is being solidified by seemingly editorial requests to change
'initiator port' to 'I_T nexus' throughout the Persistent
Reservations model.

FYI

.Ralph


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




--=_alternative 005E459607256DEF_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I would expect a).<br>
<br>
Kevin D. Butt<br>
Fibre Channel &amp; SCSI Architect, IBM Tape Microcode, <br>
6TYA, 9000 S. Rita Rd., Tucson, AZ &nbsp;85744<br>
Tie-line 321; Office: 520-799-5280, Lab: 799-5751, Fax: 799-4138, Email: kdbutt at us.ibm.com</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Ralph Weber <roweber at IEEE.org&gt;</b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-t10 at t10.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">11/30/2003 09:36 AM</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;T10 Reflector <t10 at t10.org&gt;</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cc: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Subject: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Preempting all target ports</font>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:<br>
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org&gt;<br>
*<br>
Suppose that an initiator registers using the ALL_TG_PT option.<br>
<br>
Sometime later for whatever reason, the initiator decides to<br>
preempt its own reservation key.<br>
<br>
Would you expect that:<br>
<br>
 &nbsp;a) the registration is preempted on all target ports except<br>
 &nbsp; &nbsp; the target port through which the preempt was delivered, or<br>
 &nbsp;b) the registration is not preempted on any of the target<br>
 &nbsp; &nbsp; ports associated with the preempting initiator?<br>
<br>
I believe that SPC-3 says a). Furthermore, the a) interpretation<br>
is being solidified by seemingly editorial requests to change<br>
'initiator port' to 'I_T nexus' throughout the Persistent<br>
Reservations model.<br>
<br>
FYI<br>
<br>
.Ralph<br>
<br>
<br>
*<br>
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with<br>
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
--=_alternative 005E459607256DEF_=--




More information about the T10 mailing list