Comment on 14-014r1, Persistent Reserve parameters summary
gerry.houlder at seagate.com
Wed Jan 8 07:58:52 PST 2014
Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1401083_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
I notice that table x1 (part 2 of 2) uses "invalid" as a keyword for some
service action/ parameter combinations and "reserved" for others. It is not
clear from the descriptions in the Persistent Reservation clauses how or if
these keywords are treated differently.
Reserved is a well known keyword that requires the bit to be set to zero
and the target may or may not be required to check the field. However the
field is valid for other service actions, so this suggests that the target
is required to check the field and should terminate the command with
illegal request sense data if it is non-zero. Is this the same
interpretation everyone else has for 'reserved" in this situation?
The description for invalid seems to require the bit to be set to zero and
to terminate the command with illegal request sense data if it is non-zero.
This seems exactly like "reserved" behavior.
I would like to eliminate either invalid or reserved and select one keyword
for all the cases that are listed as invalid or reserved in table x1. If we
really think the handling should be different for invalid versus reserved,
then i would like to see a description (e.g., table footnote in table x1)
of how they are different.
More information about the T10