|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: MaxBurstSize ambiguous and should be separated
Ron,
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 |