Linked commands comment, FCP-2

Bob Snively Bob.Snively at EBay.Sun.COM
Fri Mar 24 15:52:26 PST 2000

* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
* Bob Snively <Bob.Snively at EBay.Sun.COM>

In its comment number 10 (1.10 of T10/00-150r1.pdf), Crossroads spoke of
breaking links with busy.  This led to a lot of discussion and a requirement
that I verify some SAM-2 information.  My version 02 of the referenced document
shows the results of my analysis of SAM-2, revision 13:

  10 (T): 4.2 Par 7

	This paragraph does not appear to allow breaking linking by presentation 
	of an error or busy status.


	The concern is accepted, although some work remains on the resolution.

	At the meeting of March 6, 2000, the following partial resolutions were 
	agreed upon:

	The first two sentences of the offending paragraph will be corrected to 
	include the possible case for breaking a command link.

	There is an implication that linked commands are indivisible. After 
	careful review of SAM-2, I find no evidence that linked commands must be 
	executed without allowing other tasks to enter the enabled and current 

	There was some discussion about whether or not linked commands can be 
	ended by a BUSY status. SAM-2 indicates that linking can be broken by 
	BUSY status. 

	Wording from SAM-2, pdf page 68, concerning Intermediate Status will be 
	incorporated as appropriate.

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

More information about the T10 mailing list