letter ballot comment on clause 4.15

Ralph Weber roweber at ieee.org
Wed Oct 2 11:06:08 PDT 2013

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
I was flummoxed by this too, but ...
The first sign of trouble is the different addition sense codes
specified in the two blocks.
If one applies a pair of tweezers to the search for other differences,
one eventually finds the half dozen words that really matter. The first
block applies to the case where the non-volatile cache is at risk of
becoming volatile. The second block describes the disaster when
volatility really happens.
All the best,
On 10/1/2013 4:06 PM, Gerry Houlder wrote:
> In SBC-3 rev. 35j, clause 4.15, there is a large block of text 
> regarding volatile cache becoming non-volatile that is duplicated.
> On page 41, there is an a)b) list that describes reporting options for 
> a non-volatile cache that is becoming volatile. The exact same a)b) 
> list appears near the top of page 42. it is unclear to me which of 
> these lists (and introductory sentence) should be deleted. That 
> depends on whether some of the other surrounding text is intended to 
> be before or after this list.
* 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