SPC Inquiry for Quad-Aligned Zero -- deprecated since SPC-4 maybe

Knight, Frederick Frederick.Knight at netapp.com
Fri Jan 4 10:30:46 PST 2008


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Knight, Frederick" <Frederick.Knight at netapp.com>
*
Actually, I was corrected offline.  This wording can be taken to imply
that "either a value of zero, or a value of at least file will return
the ADDITIONAL LENGTH field in the parameter data".  That is obviously
incorrect.  So, here's another suggestion:
 "The ALLOCATION LENGTH field is defined in 4.3.4.6. If EVPD is set to
zero, the allocation length [[may be zero]]; or it should be at least
five, so that the ADDITIONAL LENGTH field in the parameter data (see
6.4.2) is returned. If EVPD is set to one, the allocation length [[may
be zero]]; or it should be [[-should be]] at least four, so that the
PAGE LENGTH field in the parameter data (see 7.6) is returned."
or
"The ALLOCATION LENGTH field is defined in 4.3.4.6.  To return the
ADDITIONAL LENGTH field in the parameter data (see 6.4.2) if EVPD is set
to zero, the allocation length should be at least five.  To return the
PAGE LENGTH field in the parameter data (see 7.6) if EVPD is set to one,
the allocation length should be should be at least four.  To return no
parameter data, the allocation length may be set to zero."
	Fred Knight
-----Original Message-----
From: plavarre at lexar.com [mailto:plavarre at lexar.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 12:06 PM
To: Knight, Frederick; t10 at t10.org
Cc: Gerry.Houlder at seagate.com; jgeldman at lexar.com; Mark.Evans at wdc.com;
mikeb at bustrace.com; roweber at IEEE.org
Subject: RE: SPC Inquiry for Quad-Aligned Zero -- deprecated since SPC-4
maybe
Ah wonderful.
Yes I agree this newly suggested phrase of "either zero, or" says what
we always have meant slightly better than the earlier suggestion of the
phrase "zero, else".
I also notice this last retyping of the paragraph didn't bother to
correct the famous "should be should be" tupo.
Thus I think Frederick meant to suggest:
"""The ALLOCATION LENGTH field is defined in 4.3.4.6. If EVPD is set to
zero, the allocation length should be [+ either zero, or] at least five,
so that the ADDITIONAL LENGTH field in the parameter data (see 6.4.2) is
returned. If EVPD is set to one, the allocation length should be [-
should be] at least four, so that the PAGE LENGTH field in the parameter
data (see 7.6) is returned."""
I think that form includes a new claim. I'm ok with new claims so long
as we agree the new claims are new and true.
The new claim here is that the allocation length should be nonzero when
EVPD is set to one.
I think that should is false. I think we're ok with a host trying to
discover the lack of EVPD support by setting EVPD to one without setting
allocation length nonzero. Consequently I guess the best correction
found so far would be two insertions and one deletion:
"""The ALLOCATION LENGTH field is defined in 4.3.4.6. If EVPD is set to
zero, the allocation length should be [+ either zero, or] at least five,
so that the ADDITIONAL LENGTH field in the parameter data (see 6.4.2) is
returned. If EVPD is set to one, the allocation length should be [-
should be] [+ either zero, or] at least four, so that the PAGE LENGTH
field in the parameter data (see 7.6) is returned."""
Is that right? And good enough?
Curiously yours, hope this helps, thanks in advance, Pat LaVarre
*
* 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