MMC4r03 mismatch in PREVENT/ALLOW MEDIUM REMOVAL command
p.lavarre at IEEE.org
Mon Sep 13 13:50:50 PDT 2004
* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Pat LaVarre <p.lavarre at ieee.org>
> an eject request via
> START STOP UNIT ... if either
> Persistent Prevent state or the Prevent state is set.
> fairly basic area, which affects many
> important to reconcile
> the MMC draft to both shipping products and Mt. Fuji.
Forever I have wondered, if a host cares about this difference in
design traditions, then why not teach the host to shadow the prevent
states internally, and let the host give the host the answer that host
wants, for any device of either tradition. My own history of pain
actually does include hosts rejecting a device of one tradition or the
Seems to me all that should matter is what the eject button of the
drive does, not what the actual result is for a paradoxically
self-contradictory host command sequence.
> As always, your consideration and thoughts on these matters is
* 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