FCP-4: FCP_RSP IU Note

David Peterson dpeterso at brocade.com
Wed Sep 22 13:33:15 PDT 2010


Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1009224_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

That is fine, those old devices can then remain compliant to FCP, FCP-2, or
FCP-3...
From: Neil Wanamaker [mailto:Neil_Wanamaker at pmc-sierra.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 1:29 PM
To: David Peterson; t10 at t10.org
Subject: RE: FCP-4: FCP_RSP IU Note
It isn't really relevant whether current implementations behave this way -
the old devices never seem to completely go away.
________________________________
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of David
Peterson
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 1:54 PM
To: t10 at t10.org
Subject: FCP-4: FCP_RSP IU Note
FCP-4 still has the following note:
NOTE 7 - Some early implementations presented the FCP_RSP IU without the
FCP_RESID field, FCP_SNS_LEN field, and FCP_RSP_LEN field if the
FCP_RESID_UNDER bit, FCP_RESID_OVER bit, FCP_SNS_LEN_VALID bit, and
FCP_RSP_LEN_VALID bit were all set to zero. This non-standard behavior should
be tolerated.
Are there still implementations that present the FCP_RSP IU without the
FCP_RESID field, FCP_SNS_LEN field, and FCP_RSP_LEN field if the
FCP_RESID_UNDER bit, FCP_RESID_OVER bit, FCP_SNS_LEN_VALID bit, and
FCP_RSP_LEN_VALID bit were all set to zero ?
I would really hope that we have moved past this non-standard behavior and
would like to remove this note.
Thanks...Dave



More information about the T10 mailing list