Packetized L_Q IU type field changes

Bill Galloway BillG at breatech.com
Wed Dec 15 12:02:10 PST 1999


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Bill Galloway" <BillG at breatech.com>
*



Bill Galloway
BREA Technologies, Inc.
P: (281) 530-3063
F: (281) 988-0358
BillG at breatech.com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]On Behalf Of
>Gerry_Houlder at notes.seagate.com
>Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 10:57 AM
>To: t10 at t10.org
>Subject: RE: Packetized L_Q IU type field changes
>
>
>* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
>* Gerry_Houlder at notes.seagate.com
>*
>Maybe I am missing something, but the target doesn't have to break the
'multiple
>command' stream with a QUEUE FULL status. Can't it just accept one multiple
>command SPI L_Q, accept the command packet, then disconnect if it doesn't want
>to take any more commands?

I thought so too but the note that George pointed out earlier prevents this
behavior.
It turns out there are holes in this note with messages so I think the way to
clean it up is to remove the note.

> The more difficult case occurs with even a 'last
>command' SPI L_Q when the target can't accept even one command, therefore it
>must return QUEUE FULL status.
>
>I agree that if the initiator can tolerate a sequence of:
>(a) outbound SPI L_Q with command type,
>(b) inbound SPI L_Q with status type,
>(c) inbound status packet with QUEUE FULL status;
>
>then a sequence where the inbound status packet is CHECK CONDITION (because
the
>target sees an illegal SPI L_Q packet) should also be allowed.

*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org




More information about the T10 mailing list