[T11.3] Re: FCP-3: Obsolete FCP_DL and FCP_BIDIRECTIONAL_DL
mj at feral.com
Fri Oct 1 17:11:56 PDT 2004
> In FCP-3, the recommended response ( a "should") to FCP_DL and
> FCP_BIDIRECTIONAL_DL field values that do not match the expected
> transfer length identified in the CDB is to fail the command with no
> transfer and check condition.
> As currently documented in FCP-3, disk drive and RAID vendors "should"
> fail commands with FCP_DL and FCP_BIDIRECTIONAL_DL field values
> considered in error.
> Is failing the command acceptable to current implementation?
>From my point of view, yes.
However, I should note that the Group 1 VERIFY command as implemented in
Windows 2003 using the QLogic 23XX HBA and the vendor supplied driver
does seem to send a command with a CDB payload that does indicate a data
transfer should take place but with a DL field value of zero.
Since this command is a crucial and often required part of the CHKDSK
for NTFS, electing to fail the command in one target implementation was
not an acceptable option :-).
mailto:t11_3-request at mail.t11.org?subject=unsubscribe
More information about the T10