From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] libata new EH document
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:23:28 -0400
Message-ID: <1125613408.4946.28.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>
	 <1125611718.4946.20.camel@mulgrave>  <43177B95.4040602@adaptec.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <43177B95.4040602@adaptec.com>
Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Luben Tuikov <luben_tuikov@adaptec.com>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>, ltuikov@yahoo.com, Albert Lee <albertcc@tw.ibm.com>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>, Doug Maxey <dwm@maxeymade.com>
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 18:07 -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> > 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)
> 
> SCSI Core knows nothing about ACA and/or how to use it.

I don't recall ever claiming that it did.  The discussion was about how
the error handler clears contingent allegiance conditions.

> You should also know that no one actually spells out CA or ACA,
> they just use the capitalized abbreviation, plus the fact that
> CA is obsolete.

Lets just say I'm TLA averse.

> Stop impressing the children!

Is that what people who constantly refer to standards are trying to do?
I must say I did wonder ...

James