Kurt Chan kc at core.rose.hp.com
Fri May 5 11:50:50 PDT 1995

| I do not think that this was the intent, especially for writes. Can we make
| a wording change to FCP to mean that when FCP_XFER_RDY not disabled, then
| (as it already says) XFER_RDY must ALWAYS be used, but when it is enabled,
| then it may or may not be used at the option of either the target or the
| initiator.

I understand why XFR_RDYs are undesireable on writes (latency).  But I
would be more in favor of a proposal which consisted of both a PRLI
bit and a dynamic indicator in the CMD which tells the target whether
or not XFR_RDY is desired on a command by command basis.  The Process
Login bit would indicate whether dynamic XFR_RDY is supported.

Even with such a proposal, more work for the profiles would be needed
to specify whether implementations support this optional behavior
(e.g., if an Initiator requires it but a Target does not support it,
we have no interoperability).


More information about the T10 mailing list