Command Deadline Timeout Change

Gerry Houlder gerry.houlder at seagate.com
Tue Aug 19 11:10:33 PDT 2014


Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1408191_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

These commands are only valid for devices that implement type 2 Protection
Information. Those commands are illegal for type 0 and type 1 PI
configurations. This would severely limit the systems that could use the
feature. other than that, it is an interesting idea.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Paul Suhler <Paul.Suhler at hgst.com> wrote:
>  During an internal discussion yesterday, it was suggested that I
> simplify the proposal by having deadlines only apply to the READ(32) and
> WRITE(32) commands, because those have some reserved bytes, one of which
> could be used to replicate the ICC field in the READ / WRITE FPDMA QUEUED
> commands.  This would have advantages:
>
>
>
> 1)	  Simplified by no longer piggybacking the timeout value on the
> priority feature.
>
> 2)	  Allows a different timeout per command (rather than per priority)
>
>
>
> At least one other company had expressed an interest in this
> functionality; is it acceptable to have this only for the two commands?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *Paul A. Suhler, PhD*
>
> Research Staff Member
>
> HGST Research
> *paul.suhler at hgst.com <paul.suhler at hgst.com>*
> o: 949-476-1180 x275448
>
> m: 949-241-6443
>
> 3001 Daimler St.
> Santa Ana, CA 92705-5812
> www.hgst.com
>
>
>



More information about the T10 mailing list