FW: Preempting all target ports

Ulrich, David dulrich at lsil.com
Mon Dec 1 11:36:11 PST 2003


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Ulrich, David" <dulrich at lsil.com>
*
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B842.38D2A6AC
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

In that case I would have to agree with your conclusion as well. 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ralph O. Weber [ mailto:roweber at IEEE.org 
] 
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:42 PM 
To: 't10 at t10.org' 
Subject: Re: FW: Preempting all target ports 


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by: 
* "Ralph O. Weber" <roweber at ieee.org> 
* 
I was looking at the case where there is a reservation in 
place. My understanding is that an initiator can preempt 
its own reservation. 

Regards, 

.Ralph 

Ulrich, David wrote: 

> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Ulrich, David 
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:11 AM 
> To: 'Ralph Weber' 
> Subject: RE: Preempting all target ports 
> 
> 
> In regard to the case of a preempt with no reservation in place, I 
> haven't been able to find any explicit statements to indicate that the

> I_T nexus that the command was issued on is exempt from the removal of

> the reservation key.  Is there something specific that conclusion "a" 
> below is based on? 
> 
> Best Regards, 
> 
> David Ulrich 
> Staff Software Engineer 
> LSI Logic Storage Systems 
> 3718 N. Rock Road 
> (316) 636-8871 
> david.ulrich at lsil.com 
> www.lsilogicstorage.com 
> 
> > LSI Logic Storage Systems 
> > AT THE HEART OF INFORMATION 
> > 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Ralph Weber [ mailto:roweber at IEEE.org 
] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 10:36 AM 
> To: T10 Reflector 
> 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 
> 

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


------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B842.38D2A6AC
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

 RE: FW: Preempting all target ports In that case I would have to agree with your conclusion as well. -----Original Message----- 
From: Ralph O. Weber [mailto:roweber at IEEE.org] 
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:42 PM 
To: 't10 at t10.org' 
Subject: Re: FW: Preempting all target ports 
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by: 
* ;Ralph O. Weber; <roweber at ieee.org> 
* 
I was looking at the case where there is a reservation in 
place. My understanding is that an initiator can preempt 
its own reservation. Regards, .Ralph Ulrich, David wrote: > 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Ulrich, David 
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:11 AM 
> To: 'Ralph Weber' 
> Subject: RE: Preempting all target ports 
> 
> 
> In regard to the case of a preempt with no reservation in place, I 
> haven't been able to find any explicit statements to indicate that the 
> I_T nexus that the command was issued on is exempt from the removal of 
> the reservation key.  Is there something specific that conclusion ;a; 
> below is based on? 
> 
> Best Regards, 
> 
> David Ulrich 
> Staff Software Engineer 
> LSI Logic Storage Systems 
> 3718 N. Rock Road 
> (316) 636-8871 
> david.ulrich at lsil.com 
> www.lsilogicstorage.com 
> 
> > LSI Logic Storage Systems 
> > AT THE HEART OF INFORMATION 
> > 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Ralph Weber [mailto:roweber at IEEE.org] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 10:36 AM 
> To: T10 Reflector 
> 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 
> * 
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with 
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3B842.38D2A6AC--




More information about the T10 mailing list