VERIFY (10) -- BYTCHK == 10b

Ralph Weber Ralph.Weber at wdc.com
Mon Feb 24 19:22:12 PST 2014


Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1402245_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

A somewhat desultory member of the Houlderization Fan Club has taken Gerry's
stinging rebuke to heart and uploaded a commensurate fix-up proposal.
http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=d&f=14-061r0.pdf
All the best,
.Ralph
________________________________
From: Gerry Houlder [gerry.houlder at seagate.com]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:01 PM
To: Penokie, George
Cc: Ralph Weber; t10 at t10.org
Subject: Re: VERIFY (10) -- BYTCHK == 10b
Why shouldn't that bit combination be treated as reserved? The field was
created relatively recently and no one has identified a use for that
combination, vendor specific or otherwise.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Penokie, George
<George.Penokie at lsi.com> wrote:
Ralph,
Yes, except that is unusual to call something the application does as vendor
specific.
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: owner-t10 at t10.org<mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org>
[mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org<mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org>] On Behalf Of Ralph Weber
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:36 AM
To: t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>
Subject: RE: VERIFY (10) -- BYTCHK == 10b
George,
Given the absence of any other mention of BYTCHK==10b in the applicable
subclause, the proposed wording appears to have the net effect of making the
definition of BYTCHK codepoint 10b vendor specific.
Is that your intent?
All the best,
.Ralph
________________________________
From: Penokie, George [George.Penokie at lsi.com]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:23 AM
To: Ralph Weber; t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>
Subject: RE: VERIFY (10) -- BYTCHK == 10b
Ralph,
As this table is a description of what the application client is placing in
the Data-Out buffer for the various values in the BYTCHK field, I would
consider saying for code 10b:
Application specific logical block data that is outside the scope of this
standard
Bye for now,
George Penokie
LSI Corporation
3033 41 St NW
Rochester , MN 55901
507-328-9017
george.penokie at lsi.com
From: owner-t10 at t10.org<mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org> [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org]
On Behalf Of Ralph Weber
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:45 AM
To: t10 at t10.org<mailto:t10 at t10.org>
Subject: VERIFY (10) -- BYTCHK == 10b
In SBC-3 r36, does the use of "Not Defined" in table 98 equate to "Reserved",
or is it more like "Vendor Specific" (i.e., "outside the scope of this
standard")?
I ask because table 98 is the only statement I can find in the description of
the VERIFY (10) command that any any way discusses the meaning of the 10b
codepoint for BYTCHK.
All the best,
.Ralph



More information about the T10 mailing list