12-1213 ASCQ

Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) Elliott at hp.com
Wed May 22 11:01:48 PDT 2013


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" <Elliott at hp.com>
*
One of the later suggestions was to refuse the SANITIZE command with:
a) sense key of NOT READY
b) a new additional sense code LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, MICROCODE ACTIVATION
REQUIRED
which would tell the application client exactly what to do.
This would be similar to:
    LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, NOTIFY (ENABLE SPINUP) REQUIRED
    LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, MANUAL INTERVENTION REQUIRED 
because it requires some action other than waiting to remedy.
This would be similar to:
    LOGICAL UNIT NOT ACCESSIBLE, ASYMMETRIC ACCESS STATE TRANSITION
    LOGICAL UNIT NOT ACCESSIBLE, TARGET PORT IN STANDBY STATE
    LOGICAL UNIT NOT ACCESSIBLE, TARGET PORT IN UNAVAILABLE STATE
    LOGICAL UNIT NOT READY, OPERATING IN SEQUENTIAL MODE
where the number of commands being blocked differs based on the 
additional sense code. The NOT READY sense key	does not imply the 
logical unit is refusing the same set of commands.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Penokie,
> George
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May, 2013 11:30 AM
> To: Ralph Weber
> Cc: T10 at t10.org; John Geldman (jgeldman)
> Subject: RE: 12-1213 ASCQ
> 
> * 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
*
* 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