UA interlock & multiple initiators
cbm at rose.hp.com
Thu Feb 20 11:50:05 PST 2003
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Mallikarjun C." <cbm at rose.hp.com>
Ed, Thanks for the note.
I recall starting from SAM-3 - a quick search for "UA interlock" or "interlock"
did not yield any matches, and clause 5.9.7 that discusses Unit Attention wasn't
specific on this either. But I now see that I should have searched for UA_INTLCK_CTRL.
I can now see that SAM-3 is defining the precise semantics of this bit field - so at
this point, my only recommendation would be to move the definition of those semantics
|from the Status clause (5.3) to 5.9.7, or at least add a cross-reference from the latter.
Networked Storage Architecture
Network Storage Solutions
Hewlett-Packard MS 5668
Roseville CA 95747
cbm at rose.hp.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward A. Gardner" <eag at ophidian.com>
To: "Mallikarjun C." <cbm at rose.hp.com>
Cc: "T10 Reflector" <t10 at t10.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: UA interlock & multiple initiators
> The intent was that a UA interlock would only be for the individual I_T_L
> nexus that had a failed command. That is, your "latter" case.
> Please check SAM-3. SPC-3 only states the mechanism for enabling /
> disabling UA interlock. SPC-3 is not supposed to describe how it
> works. That is in SAM-3 (and under the principle of specifying things in
> one place, should not be redundantly specified in SPC-3). If you think
> SAM-3 is ambiguous or unclear, we'll fix it.
> At 16:43 14-02-2003, Mallikarjun C. wrote:
> >* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> >* "Mallikarjun C." <cbm at rose.hp.com>
> >In looking through SPC-3 r09 for UA interlock (clause 8.4.6, table 223)
> >semantics, we couldn't find the answer to this question:
> >When UA interlock is enabled (UA_INTLCK_CTRL = 11b), does the
> >device server establish a interlocked-UA condition for all initiators, or just
> >for the initiator whose task just terminated with BUSY/TASK SET FULL/
> >RESERVATION CONFLICT?
> >I am thinking that it's the latter - i..e the interlocked UA is
> >established only for
> >the I_T nexus that just had a failed command - because I could not come up
> >a rationale for stalling all other initiators. SPC-3 however, is not
> >explicit about it.
> >Mallikarjun Chadalapaka
> >Networked Storage Architecture
> >Network Storage Solutions
> >Hewlett-Packard MS 5668
> >Roseville CA 95747
> >cbm at rose.hp.com
> Edward A. Gardner eag at ophidian.com
> Ophidian Designs 719 593-8866 voice
> 1262 Hofstead Terrace 719 210-7200 cell
> Colorado Springs, CO 80907
* 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