|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: iSCSI: aborting an immediate command with ABORT TASK
In addition in order to eliminate the "corner case" I mentioned earlier
(and that is the only ambiguity we know about) - that a TASK ABORT may
abort
both an immediate and a non-immediate that have the same number and are
both lost even though only the immediate was intended I added the following
text to 9
If an ABORT TASK is issued for a task created by an immediate
command then RefCmdSN MUST be that of the Task Management request
itself (i.e. CmdSN and RefCmdSN are equal; otherwise RefCmdSN MUST
be set to the CmdSN of the task to be aborted (lower than CmdSN).
and made 9.5.5 to raed:
RefCmdSN
If an ABORT TASK is issued for a task created by an immediate
command then RefCmdSN MUST be that of the Task Management request
itself (i.e. CmdSN and RefCmdSN are equal).
For an ABORT TASK of a task created by non-immediate command
RefCmdSN MUST be set to the CmdSN of the task identified by the
Referenced Task Tag field. Targets must use this field as described
in section 9.6.1 when the task identified by the Referenced Task Tag
field is not with the target.
Otherwise, this field is reserved.
Regards,
Julo
----- Forwarded by Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM on 05/09/02 21:56 -----
Julian Satran
To: ips@ece.cmu.edu
05/09/02 19:26 cc:
From: Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
Subject: RE: iSCSI: aborting an immediate command with ABORT TASK
Forget the previous text - we wont the clarification to be added for the
"plugging side" (the target) and the we suggest changing the last bullet b
in 9.6.1
to:
If the Referenced Task Tag does not identify an existing task,
but if the CmdSN indicated by the RefCmdSN field in the Task
Management function request is within the valid CmdSN window and
less than the CmdSN of the Task Management function request
itself, then targets must consider the CmdSN received and return
the "Function complete" response.
We thought this was obvious from the overview text but it apparently is
not.
Julo
The current wording IS CORRECT!
Home Last updated: Thu Sep 05 18:18:58 2002 11781 messages in chronological order |