From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: Incorrect response to SK/ASC/ASCQ = x 02/04/01 (becoming ready) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:29:06 -0400 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <412A3772.2000900@adaptec.com> References: <412A08D9.7020502@adaptec.com> <412A15B8.2050909@optonline.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from magic.adaptec.com ([216.52.22.17]:62913 "EHLO magic.adaptec.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266509AbUHWS3K (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:29:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <412A15B8.2050909@optonline.net> List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Nathan Bryant Cc: Alan Stern , SCSI development list , "Mike R." > Maybe the solution, then, instead of blocking, is to do something > similar to quiesce, wherein we block normal user-initiated medium access > but allow special requests. (?) Yes, something like that. > Not sure what an HOQ task attribute command is. Where in the t10.org > specs should I look for a definition of that? "Head Of Queue", cf., E.g. SAM-3r13, section 8. > How would this interact with tagged command queueing? We don't want to > attempt to queue other commands while START STOP UNIT is pending at the > device. We don't want to disable disconnects, either, otherwise the bus > would be blocked while waiting for START STOP UNIT, correct? What would happen when you have SSU with IMMED=0 pending at the device server and you send another task with say SIMPLE task attribute? ;-) > Maybe this is a SCSI-novice question, but, does disconnection require > tagged commands? Is the Linux midlayer smart enough to know that some > kinds of commands need to block others until they complete? Not sure I completely understand the questions, but I don't think SCSI Core keeps an image of the deivice server's queues. It may keep a state (send/don't send) given recently sent commands, but not as delicatly as a device server. Luben