[T11.3] Re: FCP-3: Obsolete FCP_DL and FCP_BIDIRECTIONAL_DL

Matthew Jacob mj at feral.com
Fri Oct 1 17:11:56 PDT 2004


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Matthew Jacob <mj at feral.com>
*
> In FCP-3, the recommended response ( a "should") to FCP_DL and 
> FCP_BIDIRECTIONAL_DL field values that do not match the expected 
> transfer length identified in the CDB is to fail the command with no 
> transfer and check condition.
>
> As currently documented in FCP-3, disk drive and RAID vendors "should" 
> fail commands with FCP_DL and FCP_BIDIRECTIONAL_DL field values 
> considered in error.
>
> Is failing the command acceptable to current implementation?


>From my point of view, yes.

However, I should note that the Group 1 VERIFY command as implemented in 
Windows 2003 using the QLogic 23XX HBA and the vendor supplied driver 
does seem to send a command with a CDB payload that does indicate a data 
transfer should take place but with a DL field value of zero.

Since this command is a crucial and often required part of the CHKDSK 
for NTFS, electing to fail the command in one target implementation was 
not an acceptable option :-).

-matt

*
* 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 mailing list