SPACE ALLOCATION IN PROCESS --> SPACE ALLOCATION IN PROGRESS

Ralph Weber roweber at IEEE.org
Wed Feb 25 14:12:12 PST 2009


Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r0902254_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

John,
As Mr. Gilbert so eloquently put it: "Would "in progress"
(rather than "in process") be more consistent [with the
other 04h additional sense codes]?"
Regards,
.Ralph
jgeldman at lexar.com wrote:
> "Affected Editors",
>  
> I'll bite. I don't understand the difference between the English 
> definitions. Perhaps I would care if I understood.
>  
> Did someone spell "PROCESS" wrong and request "PROGRESS" to cover up?
>  
> Please explain the rationale for this change.
>  
> John
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Ralph Weber
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:25 AM
> *To:* 't10 at t10.org'
> *Subject:* SPACE ALLOCATION IN PROCESS --> SPACE ALLOCATION IN PROGRESS
>
> After lengthy discussions between the affected editors, we
> have decided to change IN PROCESS to IN PROGRESS as per the
> request duplicated below. This change will be reflected in
> the next major revisions of SPC-4 and SBC-3.
>
> Complaints about this change, if any, should be posted to
> this reflector before the March T10 meeting week.
>
> All the best,
>
> .Ralph
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:	spc4r18: space allocation in process?
> Date: 	Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:39:11 +0100
> From: 	Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert at interlog.com>
> Reply-To:	dgilbert at interlog.com
> To:	roweber at ieee.org
>
>
> The recently added asc/ascq code 4h,14h looks a bit odd
> when compared to the adjacent entries:
>
> ....
> 04h/04h  DTL	RO   B	   LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, FORMAT IN PROGRESS
> 04h/05h  DT  W O A BK F  LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, REBUILD IN PROGRESS
> 04h/06h  DT  W O A BK    LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, RECALCULATION IN PROGRESS
> 04h/07h  DTLPWROMAEBKVF  LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, OPERATION IN PROGRESS
> 04h/08h	R	   LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, LONG WRITE IN PROGRESS
> 04h/09h  DTLPWROMAEBKVF  LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, SELF-TEST IN PROGRESS
> 04h/0Ah  DTLPWROMAEBKVF  LOGICAL UNIT NOT ACCESSIBLE, ASYMMETRIC ACCESS
STATE ... 
> 04h/0Bh  DTLPWROMAEBKVF  LOGICAL UNIT NOT ACCESSIBLE, TARGET PORT IN
STANDBY STATE
> 04h/0Ch  DTLPWROMAEBKVF  LOGICAL UNIT NOT ACCESSIBLE, TARGET PORT IN UNA...
> 04h/0Dh		F  LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, STRUCTURE CHECK REQUIRED
> 04h/10h  DT  WROM  B	   LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, AUXILIARY MEMORY NOT
ACCESSIBLE
> 04h/11h  DT  WRO AEB VF  LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, NOTIFY (ENABLE SPINUP)
REQUIRED
> 04h/12h	  M    V   LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, OFFLINE
> 04h/13h  DT	R MAEBKV   LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, SA CREATION IN PROGRESS
> 04h/14h  D	     B	   LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, SPACE ALLOCATION IN
PROCESS
>
> Would "in progress" (rather than "in process") be more consistent?
>
> Doug Gilbert
>
>
>
>   



More information about the T10 mailing list