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