On 10/22/20 10:20 AM, Anastasia Kovaleva wrote: > According to FCP-4 (9.4.2): > > If the command requested that data beyond the length specified by the > FCP_DL field be transferred, then the device server shall set the > FCP_RESID_OVER bit (see 9.5.8) to one in the FCP_RSP IU and: > > a) process the command normally except that data beyond the FCP_DL > count shall not be requested or transferred; > > b) transfer no data and return CHECK CONDITION status with the sense > key set to ILLEGAL REQUEST and the additional sense code set to INVALID > FIELD IN COMMAND INFORMATION UNIT; or > > c) may transfer data and return CHECK CONDITION status with the sense > key set to ABORTED COMMAND and the additional sense code set to > INVALID FIELD IN COMMAND INFORMATION UNIT. > > TCM follows b) and transfers no data for residual writes but returns > INVALID FIELD IN CDB instead of INVALID FIELD IN COMMAND INFORMATION > UNIT. > > Change the ASCQ to INVALID FIELD IN COMMAND INFORMATION UNIT to meet the > standart. Is FCP the only standard that requires to report INVALID FIELD IN COMMAND INFORMATION UNIT for residual overflow? I haven't found any similar requirement in the iSCSI RFC nor in the SRP standard. Additionally, what benefits does it provide to report a CHECK CONDITION upon residual overflow? The SCST QLogic FC target driver doesn't do this as far as I know, is more than ten years old, is widely used and so far nobody complained about this. Bart.
