FW: Preempting all target ports

George Penokie gop at us.ibm.com
Mon Dec 1 12:40:15 PST 2003


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* George Penokie <gop at us.ibm.com>
*
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0071564E86256DEF_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Ralph, 
You assumption is correct an Initiator can preempt it's own reservation.
So option a) is the one that makes the most sense.

Bye for now,
George Penokie

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





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


12/01/2003 01:41 PM 
        
        To:        "'t10 at t10.org'" <t10 at t10.org> 
        cc:         
        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




--=_alternative 0071564E86256DEF_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Ralph,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">You assumption is correct an Initiator can preempt it's own reservation. So option a) is the one that makes the most sense.<br>
<br>
Bye for now,<br>
George Penokie<br>
<br>
Dept 2C6 &nbsp;114-2 N212<br>
E-Mail: &nbsp; &nbsp;gop at us.ibm.com<br>
Internal: &nbsp;553-5208<br>
External: 507-253-5208 &nbsp; FAX: 507-253-2880<br>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Ralph O. 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">12/01/2003 01:41 PM</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 at t10.org'&quot; <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;Re: FW: 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 O. Weber" <roweber at ieee.org&gt;<br>
*<br>
I was looking at the case where there is a reservation in<br>
place. My understanding is that an initiator can preempt<br>
its own reservation.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
.Ralph<br>
<br>
Ulrich, David wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Ulrich, David<br>
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:11 AM<br>
> To: 'Ralph Weber'<br>
> Subject: RE: Preempting all target ports<br>
><br>
><br>
> In regard to the case of a preempt with no reservation in place, I <br>
> haven't been able to find any explicit statements to indicate that the <br>
> I_T nexus that the command was issued on is exempt from the removal of <br>
> the reservation key. &nbsp;Is there something specific that conclusion "a" <br>
> below is based on?<br>
><br>
> Best Regards,<br>
><br>
> David Ulrich<br>
> Staff Software Engineer<br>
> LSI Logic Storage Systems<br>
> 3718 N. Rock Road<br>
> (316) 636-8871<br>
> david.ulrich at lsil.com<br>
> www.lsilogicstorage.com<br>
><br>
> > LSI Logic Storage Systems<br>
> > AT THE HEART OF INFORMATION<br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Ralph Weber [mailto:roweber at IEEE.org]<br>
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 10:36 AM<br>
> To: T10 Reflector<br>
> Subject: Preempting all target ports<br>
><br>
><br>
> * 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; &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; &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>
><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 0071564E86256DEF_=--




More information about the T10 mailing list