Wed Sep 6 07:36:46 PDT 1995

Ralph Weber recently posted a revised Report LUNs fromat. I think
I agree with the intent but it seems a bit unclear in its definition
of the LUN List Length Field. Here's what it says:

>"The LUN list length shall contain the length in bytes of the LUN list.
>Essentially, the LUN list length is the number of logical unit numbers
>reported multiplied by eight.  If the allocation length in the command
>descriptor block is too small to transfer information about all
>configured logical units, the LUN list value not be adjusted to
>reflect the truncation.

I think this means to say that the number in the LUN list length
field is the length in bytes of the list of LUNs which exist inside
the target. If the allocation length of the CDB was not as long
as the LUN list length, then the LUN list length field is not changed,
and it is longer than 8 times the number of LUNs listed. If this
happens, the host must recognize this and reissue this
with a longer allocation length.

If this is the intent, then at a minimum the proposal needs to
1) revise the LUN list length field definition to define it as the
   eight times the number of LUNs which exist in the target, and
2) revise the last sentence to say that "...the LUN list *LENGTH* value
   is not adjusted...".
Giles Frazier
gfrazier at
IBM Austin

More information about the T10 mailing list