Expeditious review requested of Zone Attributes definitions rewrites
george.penokie at avagotech.com
Tue May 19 09:01:22 PDT 2015
Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1505192_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>
My interpretation of the discussion was that the "set to" wording would be
used for the state variables. I don't recall were the attributes ended up.
Bye for now,
Attn: George Penokie
4109 Manor View Dr NW
Rochester , MN 55901
george.penokie at avagotech.com
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Ralph Weber <Ralph.Weber at wdc.com> wrote:
> *Topic One*
> During yesterday's call, I specifically asked if anybody wanted to insist
> that the "set to" nomenclature be used for zone attributes.
> The discussion favoring the current wording revolved around the notion
> that the definitions of zoned attributes should be enough different from
> the way field values are described so as to ensure that the standard was
> not seen as requiring any specific implementation for zone attributes.
> When the dust settled, I heard no concerted demands for the "set to"
> nomenclature. Now, upwards of 90% of the markups in the transmitted PDF
> amount to exactly such demands.
> Did I misread the tenor of opinions on yesterday's call? Has use of the
> "set to" nomenclature become the consensus position?
> *Topic Two*
> Regarding the "big comment" ...
> Given the previous efforts that are reflected in Curtis' proposed text, I
> have no objection to the following two changes.
> The device may allocate and deallocate non-sequential write resources at
> any time during or after the processing of one or more non-sequential write
> commands. As a result, the host is not able to associate the value of the
> Non-Sequential Write Resources Active zone attribute with any series of
> write commands that start at the write pointer, as recommended by this
> standard, mixed with non-sequential write commands.
> *If a non-sequential write operation occurs in a zone, then the device
> server may cause the Non-Sequential Write Resources Active zone attribute
> to have a true value. The device server may change the Non-Sequential
> Resources Active zone attribute to a false value at any time if
> non-sequential write resources are no longer allocated for that zone.*
> Action by the host (e.g., sending a RESET WRITE POINTERS EXT command (see
> 5.2.8) specifying this zone) may or may not be required to cause the value
> of the Non-Sequential Write Resources Active zone attribute to change from
> true to false.
> However, I object to the other changes in the "big comment" as described
> in topic three and topic four.
> *Topic Three*
> The application client is owed some shred of consistent behavior as
> regards the Non-Sequential Write Resources Active zone attribute.
> Therefore, the following paragraph (or something equivalent) ought to
> remain in the proposal.
> If the device has not processed a non-sequential write command in a zone
> since the last time a RESET WRITE POINTERS EXT command (see 5.2.8) was
> processed, then the Sequential Writes Affecting Performance zone attribute
> shall have a false value.
> *Topic Four*
> To maintain a consistency of descriptions across all zone attribute
> definitions, the following paragraph is critical to the success of the
> Empty zones, read only zones, and offline zones have a false value in the
> Non-Sequential Write Resources Active zone attribute (see 18.104.22.168.2,
> 22.214.171.124.7, and 126.96.36.199.8, respectively).
> All the best,
> *From:* Gerry Houlder [gerry.houlder at seagate.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2015 9:55 AM
> *To:* Ralph Weber
> *Cc:* t10 at t10.org
> *Subject:* Re: Expeditious review requested of Zone Attributes
> definitions rewrites
> My comments are included in the attachment. There is one big comment
> and a handful of editorial nits.
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Ralph Weber <Ralph.Weber at wdc.com> wrote:
>> The two-page, recently posted
>> http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=15-159r0.pdf contains the
>> rewrites that resulted from yesterday's review of 15-113r3. The goal of
>> this separate document that is not on any agenda is to put the new text in
>> the hands of interested parties ASAP.
>> Comments on 15-159r0 that are received by the close of business today
>> will be reflected in the ZAC zone state machine document posted tomorrow
>> morning for review by the conference call later that day.
>> All the best,
More information about the T10