From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [RFC] libata new EH document Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:55:18 -0400 Message-ID: <1125611718.4946.20.camel@mulgrave> References: <20050901043850.15186.qmail@web51611.mail.yahoo.com> <43169520.6040008@gmail.com> <20050901055421.GA23496@havoc.gtf.org> <1125581097.4834.5.camel@mulgrave> <4317755C.5080700@adaptec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4317755C.5080700@adaptec.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Luben Tuikov Cc: Jeff Garzik , Tejun Heo , ltuikov@yahoo.com, Albert Lee , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, SCSI Mailing List , Doug Maxey List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:40 -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote: > > The current SCSI autosense in drivers doesn't require this because we > > reuse the existing command that got the contingent allegiance condition. > > Care to elaborate what "contingent allegiance condition" is, > how SCSI Core got it, how SCSI Core is using it, and how SCSI Core set > it up with the LU? Well, not really, since it's basic SCSI and the explanation's pretty long. However, the standards have several pages about it. For your reading pleasure, I suggest SAM-2 section 5.9.1 Contingent allegiance (CA) and auto contingent allegiance (ACA) James