Fwd: SBC 3r21 Verification of a table in the spec

Gerry Houlder gerry.houlder at seagate.com
Wed May 19 13:54:44 PDT 2010

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1005191_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gerry Houlder <gerry.houlder at seagate.com>
Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: SBC 3r21 Verification of a table in the spec
To: scott taggart <taggart at taggarts.org>
I think the table you are quoting is the equivalent of table 87 in rev. 22,
which list requirements for doing byte-by-byte checking. This requirement is
consistent in that the protection information bytes are not checked per the
rules for checking protection bytes, but they are part of the byte-by-byte
comparing. The table requires the drive to generate different sense bytes
depending on whether the miscompare occurs in the user data ( regular
MISCOMPARE bytes specified in text earlier in the VERIFY command
description) or in one of the protection information fields.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:00 PM, scott taggart <taggart at taggarts.org> wrote:
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
> * scott taggart <taggart at taggarts.org>
> *
> Hi,
> I am looking at table 79 of SBC3r21 and was hoping someone could verify
> that the VRPROTECT description for values 011 and 100 are correct (the
> verify command) are correct.	Specifically, value 011 (0x03) is
> with all the other xxProtect values for read. write, etc. commands in the
> spec.  Fro the commands other than verify, 011 is used to disable all T10
> tag fields.  Why is it different for the verify command?
> Thanks,
> Scott
> *
> * 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