Re: [storm] What if a SCSI Response PDU has GOOD status anda DataSegment?
Ralph Weber <roweber@ieee.org> Mon, 30 November 2009 23:19 UTC
Return-Path: <roweber@sempai.org>
X-Original-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D222D28C140 for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:19:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j76Fgk5gzEYY for <storm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:19:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sempai.org (greenwood.sempai.org [72.249.129.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07723A69E8 for <storm@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:19:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 154.sub-70-218-142.myvzw.com ([70.218.142.154] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by sempai.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <roweber@sempai.org>) id 1NFFWi-000MIu-Tj for storm@ietf.org; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:19:30 -0600
Message-ID: <4B1452F8.4050404@ieee.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:19:20 -0600
From: Ralph Weber <roweber@ieee.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: storm@ietf.org
References: <OF589126F8.D210A241-ON8525767E.007E3D11-8525767E.007EBA38@attotech.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF589126F8.D210A241-ON8525767E.007E3D11-8525767E.007EBA38@attotech.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030901060500000801080001"
Sender: roweber@sempai.org
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 70.218.142.154
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: roweber@sempai.org
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on sempai.org)
Subject: Re: [storm] What if a SCSI Response PDU has GOOD status anda DataSegment?
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm>
List-Post: <mailto:storm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:19:39 -0000
Dear MR. Cuddihy, Thank you for this information. The T10 (SCSI Committee) folks working on returning Sense Data with GOOD status will be pleased to hear that the "extra info" will be ignored. Please be sure to let me know if additional research reverses this observation. The current design center for GOOD w/ Sense usage requires that proper operation of the feature have no dependence on the "extra info" reaching the intended recipient (i.e., other ways of obtaining the same information MUST be provided). It is a given that some number of years will be required to arrange for the "extra info" to traverse its way up the OS driver stack. All the best, .Ralph dcuddihy@attotech.com wrote: > > Ralph, > > The Xtend SAN initiator (for Mac OS X) will not pass sense data to > the OS unless CHECK CONDITION status is returned. At first glance it > looks like our validation routines would silently ignore the extra info. > > david > > / > For every action there is an equal and opposite malfunction.../ > > David J Cuddihy > Principal Engineer > ATTO Technology, Inc. > > _ > __www.attotech.com_ <http://www.attotech.com/>*/ > Power Behind the Storage/* > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > storm mailing list > storm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm >