15-162r0 (Clarify FUA bit wording) has been posted

Ballard, Curtis C (HP Storage) curtis.ballard at hp.com
Thu May 28 13:30:01 PDT 2015

Formatted message: <a href="http://www.t10.org/cgi-bin/ac.pl?t=r&f=r1505289_f.htm">HTML-formatted message</a>

I read the proposal.  I don’t have any comments directly on the text at
this point but am thinking about it.
It is my opinion that the initialization pattern for provisioning or ZBC is a
form of non-volatile cache.  It may be a hard coded value in firmware but it
is pretty easy to model it as being a value kept in non-volatile cache. 
15-162r0 proposes changing the text where values are read from non-volatile
cache to include reading them from the appropriate pattern. If we think of
those patterns as being stored in non-volatile cache then I don’t feel that
the places 15-162r0 proposes changing need to be modified.
It may work to have something in the ZBC and provisioning model clauses that
expressly states that the pattern shall be retained in non-volatile cache.
Those requirements could have an (e.g., for access by read operations
specifying FUA) if we want to tie the requirements to this use.
Curtis Ballard
Hewlett Packard
From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Gerry Houlder
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:48 PM
To: T10 Reflector
Subject: 15-162r0 (Clarify FUA bit wording) has been posted
This is my attempt to add wording to clarify the read with FUA cases where
the application client is reading LBAs that are either unmapped or unwritten.
i believe this conforms to opinions expressed at the May 27 T13 telecon and
recently posted to the T10 and T13 reflectors.
I have no idea how similar definition can be added to ASC-4.

More information about the T10 mailing list