Excessive Houlderization of Command Deadline Timeout Proposal (14-107)

Paul Suhler Paul.Suhler at hgst.com
Tue Aug 26 15:55:40 PDT 2014

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1408270_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

Hi, Dan (and anyone else who might remember...).
In the course of developing the Command Deadline Timeout proposal, the
deadline time has gone from specific to read or write commands, to generic,
and back to specific:
Revision 2:
Changed Control Extension Time Priority mode page to descriptor format. Added
zero case to DNCA and DNCB bits. Changed RDNC and WDNC to DNCA and DNCB,
Revision 5:
Added REPORT SUPPORTED OPCODES reporting for WDNC and RDNC. Changed DNCA and
DNCB back to RDNC and WDNC. Returned RDNC and WDNC to global from per
priority level.  Changed SBC section to make it similar to implicit head of
queue style.
At today's teleconference, I was asked to go to generic again.	This would be
a Houlderization cycle count of  3ð radians in sixteen months, and thus
requires further investigation.
Does anyone remember the reasons for the change *back* to RDNC and WDNC from
DNCS and DNCB in r5?
Ps:  Thanks to Curtis Ballard for detecting the excessive Houlderization.
Paul A. Suhler, PhD
Research Staff Member
HGST Research
paul.suhler at hgst.com
o: 949-476-1180 x275448
m: 949-241-6443
3001 Daimler St.
Santa Ana, CA 92705-5812
www.hgst.com<<a href="http://www.hgst.com/&gt">http://www.hgst.com/&gt;

More information about the T10 mailing list