12-1213 ASCQ

Penokie, George George.Penokie at lsi.com
Wed May 22 09:30:21 PDT 2013


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Penokie, George" <George.Penokie at lsi.com>
*
Ralph,
OK, there were so may solutions talked about I forgot which one we ended up
with. I believe we ended up with that if there is any deferred microcode when
a SANITIZE command is attempted the SANAIZE command would fail. So you are
correct the ASCQ I suggested in not correct and we do need a new one.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Weber [mailto:roweber at ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 11:16 AM
To: Penokie, George
Cc: T10 at t10.org; John Geldman (jgeldman)
Subject: Re: 12-1213 ASCQ
George,
My understanding is that the need for a new ASC arises from an 
unpleasant interaction between Deferred Microcode Downloads and 
Sanitize. If this true, then the existing ASC will send the wrong message.
All the best,
.Ralph
On 5/22/2013 10:45 AM, Penokie, George wrote:
>
> John,
>
> In yesterdays discussion on 12-123 there was talk about adding a new 
> ASCQ. That is not needed as an ASCQ is already defined that can be 
> used. So just use this in your proposal:
>
> the additional sense code set to LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, SANITIZE IN 
> PROGRESS
>
> Bye for now,
>
> George Penokie
>
> LSI Corporation
>
> 3033 41 St NW
>
> Rochester , MN 55901
>
> 507-328-9017
>
> george.penokie at lsi.com
>
*
* 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