Another Persistent Reservation question

George Penokie gop at us.ibm.com
Thu Jun 26 07:00:59 PDT 2003


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* George Penokie <gop at us.ibm.com>
*
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 004CCB7E86256D51_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Ken, 
The wording you pointed out is not in conflict with figure 3 but it is
weird. You are correct in that there are no registered initiators left
to create a unit attention for if the key is set to zero. The wording
states that any registrations that are left get the UA but there are
none left so therefore there are no UAs. 

That said, the wording is meaningless and could only lead to confusion
so it should be removed. I will request it be removed at the next CAP
meeting. The result would be that the wording below would be deleted. 

If a persistent reservation was removed or changed, the device server
shall establish a unit attention for every initiator port associated
with a registered I_T nexus whose reservation key was not removed except
for the initiator port through which the command was issued. The
additional sense code shall be set as follows: 
a) If the service action was PREEMPT or PREEMPT AND ABORT with a SERVICE
ACTION RESERVATION KEY set to zero, the additional sense code shall be
set to RESERVATIONS RELEASED. 
b) If the service action was RELEASE, the additional sense code shall be
set to RESERVATIONS RELEASED.

Bye for now,
George Penokie

Dept 2C6  114-2 N212
E-Mail:    gop at us.ibm.com
Internal:  553-5208
External: 507-253-5208   FAX: 507-253-2880





	"Ken Craig" <kcraig at istor.com> 
Sent by: owner-t10 at t10.org 


06/18/2003 07:38 PM 
        
        To:        <t10 at t10.org> 
        cc:         
        Subject:        Another Persistent Reservation question 





* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* "Ken Craig" <kcraig at istor.com>
*
SPC-3 Rev. 13, Figure 3 (the PREEMPT flow chart)
now shows that when a LUN has a reservation type
of ALL REGISTRANTS and gets one of the PREEMPT
Service Actions with a Service Action Reservation
Key of 0 all of the registrations except the one
that belongs to the Initiator that sent the PREEMPT
are removed.  However the third paragraph of
Section 5.5.2.7.1.2 states that all of the LUN's
registered Initiators whose reservation key was not
removed get a UA with one of the ASCs described in
the text below the paragraph.  It seems like item a)
in that text can't apply in this case since all of
the registered Initiators have had their reservation
removed except for the Initiator that sent the
PREEMPT who never gets UA.  Is there a conflict
between Section 5.5.2.7.1.2 and the revised flow chart
or am I interpreting this incorrectly?

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




--=_alternative 004CCB7E86256D51_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Ken,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The wording you pointed out is not in conflict with figure 3 but it is weird. You are correct in that there are no registered initiators left to create a unit attention for if the key is set to zero. The wording states that any registrations that are left get the UA but there are none left so therefore there are no UAs. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">That said, the wording is meaningless and could only lead to confusion so it should be removed. I will request it be removed at the next CAP meeting. The result would be that the wording below would be deleted.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">If a persistent reservation was removed or changed, the device server shall establish a unit attention for every initiator port associated with a registered I_T nexus whose reservation key was not removed except for the initiator port through which the command was issued. The additional sense code shall be set as follows:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">a) If the service action was PREEMPT or PREEMPT AND ABORT with a SERVICE ACTION RESERVATION KEY set to zero, the additional sense code shall be set to RESERVATIONS RELEASED.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">b) If the service action was RELEASE, the additional sense code shall be set to RESERVATIONS RELEASED.<br>
<br>
Bye for now,<br>
George Penokie<br>
<br>
Dept 2C6 &nbsp;114-2 N212<br>
E-Mail: &nbsp; &nbsp;gop at us.ibm.com<br>
Internal: &nbsp;553-5208<br>
External: 507-253-5208 &nbsp; FAX: 507-253-2880<br>
<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Ken Craig" <kcraig at istor.com&gt;</b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-t10 at t10.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">06/18/2003 07:38 PM</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; To: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<t10 at t10.org&gt;</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; cc: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Subject: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Another Persistent Reservation question</font>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:<br>
* "Ken Craig" <kcraig at istor.com&gt;<br>
*<br>
SPC-3 Rev. 13, Figure 3 (the PREEMPT flow chart)<br>
now shows that when a LUN has a reservation type<br>
of ALL REGISTRANTS and gets one of the PREEMPT<br>
Service Actions with a Service Action Reservation<br>
Key of 0 all of the registrations except the one<br>
that belongs to the Initiator that sent the PREEMPT<br>
are removed. &nbsp;However the third paragraph of<br>
Section 5.5.2.7.1.2 states that all of the LUN's<br>
registered Initiators whose reservation key was not<br>
removed get a UA with one of the ASCs described in<br>
the text below the paragraph. &nbsp;It seems like item a)<br>
in that text can't apply in this case since all of<br>
the registered Initiators have had their reservation<br>
removed except for the Initiator that sent the<br>
PREEMPT who never gets UA. &nbsp;Is there a conflict<br>
between Section 5.5.2.7.1.2 and the revised flow chart<br>
or am I interpreting this incorrectly?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Kenneth Ray Craig, Jr.<br>
*<br>
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with<br>
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
--=_alternative 004CCB7E86256D51_=--




More information about the T10 mailing list