|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: MaxBurstSize ambiguous and should be separatedRon, Arguments can be brought for having single limit such as: simplicity it is a SCSI-to-SCSI limit and most devices are using one direction at a time However it is a simple matter to make 2 limits as for the transport so we may want to do it if there are no good technical arguments against it. Julo Ron Grinfeld <Rong@siliquent.c To: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL om> cc: Subject: MaxBurstSize ambiguous and should be separated 17-03-02 15:25 Please respond to Ron Grinfeld Julian, MaxBurstSize, as it is now defined, limits both write sequences (by limiting the R2T) and limits read sequences supposedly when using the A bit. Furthermore, according to section 11.13, it limits ANY data-in sequence (without mentioning error recovery or A bit usage). Therefore it is both: (1) Ambiguous - is it or is not applicable to data-ins when A bit is NOT used? (2) Needlessly confining - why should data-in and data-out sequence limits be artificially tied through this one parameter Why don't we define instead: (a) MaxDataOutBurstSize (max sequence of data-outs - limits R2Ts) (b) MaxDataInBurstSize (max sequence of data-ins, point of ACK or direction change) Rong
Home Last updated: Mon Mar 18 12:18:11 2002 9177 messages in chronological order |