From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8738360424916799211==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Walker, Benjamin Subject: Re: [SPDK] Comparing discovery log page to the spec definition Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 16:26:17 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: AM5PR04MB31878115F3831CF30E37E683ECD40@AM5PR04MB3187.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com List-ID: To: spdk@lists.01.org --===============8738360424916799211== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 12:54 +0000, Limor Halutzi wrote: > Hi Guys, > = > I am working on comparing the discovery log page to the spec and I noticed > that there is a trello task on this issue (Audit and make fully spec comp= liant > the implementation of the Discovery Log Page) and I have some questions: > = > = > 1. TREQ (byte 03) - We don't need a secure session and in our system t= his > field is set to not specified (0). > Do we need to change it to not required (2)? I think we should change this to not required as you indicate, but what we'= re returning seems technically correct. > What is the different between these two options? > 2. I compared the log page entry struct with the log page entry from t= he > spec and they are the same. > In addition, I checked that the values are valid to my machine. > What is required to close this task? I moved it to closed. Thanks! > = > Thanks, > Limor > = > _______________________________________________ > SPDK mailing list > SPDK(a)lists.01.org > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk --===============8738360424916799211==--